GRID K520 vs Quadro K2200
GRID K520
Popular choices:
Quadro K2200
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GRID K520 is positioned at rank 350 and the Quadro K2200 is on rank 169, so the Quadro K2200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID K520
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K2200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro K2200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID K520.
| Insight | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro K2200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro K2200 holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $50), it costs 20% less, resulting in a 27.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+27.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) | ✅More affordable ($40) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GRID K520 and Quadro K2200
GRID K520
The GRID K520 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 23 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,516 points. Launch price was $3,599.
Quadro K2200
The Quadro K2200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 22 2014. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1046 MHz to 1124 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 68W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,580 points. Launch price was $395.75.
Graphics Performance
The GRID K520 scores 3,516 and the Quadro K2200 reaches 3,580 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID K520 is built on Kepler while the Quadro K2200 uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID K520) vs 640 (Quadro K2200). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 (GRID K520) vs 1.439 TFLOPS (Quadro K2200).
| Feature | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,516 | 3,580+2% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536 ×2+140% | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2+59% | 1.439 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 ×2+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 ×2+220% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 320 KB+150% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GRID K520 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K2200 has 4 GB. The Quadro K2200 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GRID K520) vs 2 MB (Quadro K2200) — the Quadro K2200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GRID K520) vs 12 (11_0) (Quadro K2200). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 4.
| Feature | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4+17% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 0 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1 (GRID K520) vs NVENC 4th Gen (Quadro K2200). Decoder: NVDEC 1 vs NVDEC 1. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GRID K520) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro K2200).
| Feature | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1 | NVENC 4th Gen |
| Decoder | NVDEC 1 | NVDEC 1 |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID K520 draws 225W versus the Quadro K2200's 68W — a 107.2% difference. The Quadro K2200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID K520) vs 350W (Quadro K2200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 203mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 68W-70% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 203mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 15.6 | 52.6+237% |
Value Analysis
The GRID K520 launched at $3599 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the Quadro K2200 launched at $500 and now averages $40. The Quadro K2200 costs 20% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 70.3 (GRID K520) vs 89.5 (Quadro K2200) — the Quadro K2200 offers 27.3% better value. The Quadro K2200 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2013).
| Feature | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3599 | $500-86% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $40-20% |
| Performance per Dollar | 70.3 | 89.5+27% |
| Codename | GK104 | GM107 |
| Release | July 23 2013 | July 22 2014 |
| Ranking | #540 | #534 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID K520 and Quadro K2200
