NVIDIA Quadro P620 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P620 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 P620

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 6 month(s) later
• Around 21% higher core clock speed: 1266 MHz vs 1046 MHz
• Around 20% higher boost clock speed: 1354 MHz vs 1124 MHz
• Around 4% higher texture fill rate: 46.56 GTexel / s vs 44.96 GTexel / s
• Around 4% better floating-point performance: 1,490 gflops vs 1,439 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 70% lower typical power consumption: 40 Watt vs 68 Watt
• Around 3% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3670 vs 3572
• Around 4% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12475 vs 12020
• Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 43.877 vs 40.695
• Around 31% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 773.248 vs 588.094
• Around 75% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 53.425 vs 30.455
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 184.343 vs 166.26
• 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3881 vs 1577
• 4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 6631 vs 1671
• 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3881 vs 1577
• 4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 6631 vs 1671

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2200

• Around 25% higher pipelines: 640 vs 512
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.205 vs 3.082
• Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4921 vs 3575
• Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4921 vs 3575

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P620
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3670 3572
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	549 548
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	12475 12020
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	43.877 40.695
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	773.248 588.094
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.082 3.205
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	53.425 30.455
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	184.343 166.26
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3575 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3881 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6631 1671
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3575 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3881 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6631 1671

Compare specifications (specs)