NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 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 P2200

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 month(s) later
• Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 9372 vs 7881
• Around 58% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 892 vs 564
• Around 49% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1958.592 vs 1316.075
• Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.742 vs 94.915
• Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11437 vs 10959
• Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11437 vs 10959
• 11.2x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3404 vs 305

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

• Around 49% higher core clock speed: 1485 MHz vs 1000 MHz
• Around 12% higher boost clock speed: 1665 MHz vs 1493 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 16 nm
• Around 21% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 39165 vs 32343
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 134.765 vs 121.124
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 8.799 vs 8.452
• Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 573.418 vs 510.941
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 1676
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 1676

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	9372 7881
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	892 564
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	32343 39165
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	121.124 134.765
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1958.592 1316.075
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8.452 8.799
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	120.742 94.915
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	510.941 573.418
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	11437 10959
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3717 3715
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1676 3358
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	11437 10959
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3717 3715
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1676 3358
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	3404 305

Compare specifications (specs)