NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 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 10 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- Around 67% higher core clock speed: 1000 MHz vs 600 MHz
- 3109.4x more texture fill rate: 119.4 GTexel/s vs 38.4 GTexel / s
- 6.7x more pipelines: 1280 vs 192
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 16 nm vs 55 nm
- Around 44% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 108 Watt
- 5x more maximum memory size: 5 GB vs 1 GB
- 11.4x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 9372 vs 825
- 18.2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 892 vs 49
- 2.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 32343 vs 13337
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 10 June 2019 vs 30 March 2009 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz vs 600 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 119.4 GTexel/s vs 38.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1280 vs 192 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm vs 55 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 108 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 5 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9372 vs 825 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 vs 49 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 vs 13337 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
- Around 94% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3258 vs 1676
- Around 94% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3258 vs 1676
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3258 vs 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3258 vs 1676 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9372 | 825 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 | 49 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 | 13337 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1676 | 3258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1676 | 3258 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GP106 | GT200B |
| Launch date | 10 June 2019 | 30 March 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 307 | 1363 |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | |
| Price now | $109.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 9.89 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 55 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 119.4 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 59.72 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.822 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 192 |
| Pixel fill rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 119.4 GTexel/s | 38.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Transistor count | 4400 million | 1,400 million |
| Floating-point performance | 462.3 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 201 mm (7.9") | 198 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 200.2 GB/s | 51.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 160 bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory type | GDDR5X | GDDR3 |
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro P2200 with others
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M390X
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980 Ti
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980 (Laptop)
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
AMDRadeon R9 380X
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAP102-100
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
AMDRadeon RX 5500 XT
