Chipversus Index
Jump to Section

GRID K520 vs Quadro K2200

CPUCPUGPUGPU

GRID K520

2013Core: 745 MHz
Similar parts
····
Buy on Amazon
VS
NVIDIA

Quadro K2200

2014Core: 1046 MHzBoost: 1124 MHz
Similar parts
····
Buy on Amazon

GRID K520 vs Quadro K2200 Performance Spectrum

GRID K520
2 GB 225
3,516
0.0%
brand logoGeForce GTX 470M
brand logoGeForce MX330
brand logoGeForce GTX 465
brand logoGeForce GTX 860M
brand logoGeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design
brand logoGeForce RTX 2070 (Mobile)
brand logoGeForce RTX 3060 12GB
brand logoGeForce RTX 2080 Ti
Quadro K2200
4 GB 68
3,580
+1.8%
brand logoGeForce GTX 460 SE
brand logoGeForce MX250
brand logoGeForce GTX 770M
brand logoGeForce GTX 470
brand logoGeForce GTX 780
brand logoGeForce RTX 2070 (Mobile)
brand logoGeForce RTX 3060 12GB
brand logoGeForce RTX 2080 Ti

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.

GRID K520 vs Quadro K2200: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GRID K520

2013

Why buy it

  • ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.

Trade-offs

  • ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
  • ❌2013 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
  • ❌
    619.8% HIGHER MSRP
    $3,599 MSRPvs$500 MSRP
  • ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 1.0 vs 7.2 G3D/$ ($3,599 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
  • ❌230.9% higher power demand at 225W vs 68W.

Quadro K2200

2014

Why buy it

  • ✅Costs $3,099 less on MSRP ($500 MSRP vs $3,599 MSRP).
  • ✅Delivers 632.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 7.2 vs 1.0 G3D/$ ($500 MSRP vs $3,599 MSRP).
  • ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
  • ✅Draws 68W instead of 225W, a 157W reduction.
  • ✅Measures 203mm instead of 267mm, a 64mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

  • ❌2014 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
Quadro K2200 is the faster gaming card right now based on the synthetic data we have. It leads by 1.8% in PassMark G3D (3,580 vs 3,516), which is the best performance signal available in this matchup.
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
GRID K520 is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond because it comes out ahead on the available hardware-headroom signals for this matchup.
Which GPU is the better buy today?
Quadro K2200 makes the most sense to buy today. It is $3,099 cheaper on MSRP at $500 vs $3,599, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 632.9% (7.2 vs 1.0), so the value case lines up with the gaming result. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Quadro K2200 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, GRID K520 has the stronger long-term case.

GRID K520 vs Quadro K2200 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

NVIDIA

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.

NVIDIA

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).

FeatureGRID K520Quadro 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)

FeatureGRID K520Quadro K2200
Upscaling Tech
Upscaling support
Upscaling support
Frame Generation
Not Supported
Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction
No
No
Low Latency
Standard
Standard
💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GRID K520 has 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K2200 carries 4 GB. Quadro K2200 gives you 100% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 64-bit on the GRID K520 and 64-bit on the Quadro K2200. 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.

FeatureGRID K520Quadro 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.

FeatureGRID K520Quadro 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).

FeatureGRID K520Quadro 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.

FeatureGRID K520Quadro 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

At launch, the GRID K520 came in at $3599, while the Quadro K2200 launched at $500. On MSRP, Quadro K2200 was 86.1% cheaper ($3099 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 1.0 (GRID K520) vs 7.2 (Quadro K2200) — the Quadro K2200 offers 620% better value. The newer card here is Quadro K2200 (2014 vs 2013).

FeatureGRID K520Quadro K2200
MSRP
$3599
$500-86%
Performance per Dollar
1.0
7.2+620%
Codename
GK104
GM107
Release
July 23 2013
July 22 2014
Ranking
#540
#534
Search GRID K520 on AmazonSearch Quadro K2200 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.