NVIDIA Quadro P2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro P2000

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 6 month(s) later
• Around 3% higher core clock speed: 1076 MHz vs 1046 MHz
• Around 32% higher boost clock speed: 1480 MHz vs 1124 MHz
• 2.1x more texture fill rate: 94.72 GTexel / s vs 44.96 GTexel / s
• Around 20% higher pipelines: 768 vs 640
• 2.1x better floating-point performance: 3,031 gflops vs 1,439 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 16 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 25% higher maximum memory size: 5 GB vs 4 GB
• Around 40% higher memory clock speed: 7008 MHz vs 5012 MHz
• Around 95% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6957 vs 3572
• Around 15% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 630 vs 548
• Around 90% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 22896 vs 12020
• 2.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 vs 40.695
• 2.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1414.794 vs 588.094
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.736 vs 3.205
• 2.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 81.206 vs 30.455
• 2.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 417.823 vs 166.26
• 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10251 vs 4921
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3681 vs 1577
• Around 98% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3316 vs 1671
• 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10251 vs 4921
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3681 vs 1577
• Around 98% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3316 vs 1671
• 2.5x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2958 vs 1193

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2200

• Around 10% lower typical power consumption: 68 Watt vs 75 Watt

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	6957 3572
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	630 548
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	22896 12020
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	113.416 40.695
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1414.794 588.094
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6.736 3.205
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	81.206 30.455
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	417.823 166.26
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10251 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3681 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3316 1671
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10251 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3681 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3316 1671
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	2958 1193

Compare specifications (specs)