NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. 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 2 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- Around 1% higher boost clock speed: 1493 MHz vs 1480 MHz
- 720.1x more texture fill rate: 119.4 GTexel/s vs 165.8 GTexel / s
- Around 33% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 100 Watt
- Around 12% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 892 vs 795
- Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1958.592 vs 1590.392
- 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.742 vs 45.977
- 3.1x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3404 vs 1115
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 10 June 2019 vs 6 February 2017 |
| Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz vs 1480 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 119.4 GTexel/s vs 165.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 100 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 vs 795 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 vs 1590.392 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 vs 45.977 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 vs 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 vs 3714 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 vs 1115 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro P4000
- Around 20% higher core clock speed: 1202 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- Around 40% higher pipelines: 1792 vs 1280
- Around 60% higher maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 5 GB
- Around 23% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 11545 vs 9372
- Around 31% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 42289 vs 32343
- Around 26% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 152.325 vs 121.124
- Around 34% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.365 vs 8.452
- Around 47% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 751.626 vs 510.941
- Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 15267 vs 11437
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 1676
- Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 15267 vs 11437
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 1676
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
| Pipelines | 1792 vs 1280 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 5 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11545 vs 9372 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 42289 vs 32343 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.325 vs 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.365 vs 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 vs 510.941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 vs 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 vs 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 1676 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P4000
| 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 |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9372 | 11545 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 | 795 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 | 42289 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | 152.325 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | 1590.392 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | 11.365 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | 45.977 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | 751.626 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 | 15267 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1676 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 | 15267 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1676 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 | 1115 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Pascal |
| Code name | GP106 | GP104 |
| Launch date | 10 June 2019 | 6 February 2017 |
| Place in performance rating | 307 | 287 |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | |
| Price now | $799.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 17.17 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz | 1480 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1202 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 16 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 | 1792 |
| Pixel fill rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 119.4 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Transistor count | 4400 million | 7,200 million |
| Floating-point performance | 5,304 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.4 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 201 mm (7.9") | 241 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 200.2 GB/s | 192 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 160 bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory type | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | 7604 MHz | |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Stereo | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
