GRID K520 vs Quadro K2200M
GRID K520
Popular choices:
Quadro K2200M
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 K2200M is on rank 27, so the Quadro K2200M 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 K2200M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro K2200M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.5% 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 K2200M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.5%) |
| 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) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro K2200M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 K2200M
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 K2200M
The Quadro K2200M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 19 2014. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock speed is 667 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 65W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,535 points.
Graphics Performance
The GRID K520 scores 3,516 and the Quadro K2200M reaches 3,535 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID K520 is built on Kepler while the Quadro K2200M uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID K520) vs 640 (Quadro K2200M). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 (GRID K520) vs 0.8538 TFLOPS (Quadro K2200M).
| Feature | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,516 | 3,535 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536 ×2+140% | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2+168% | 0.8538 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 K2200M |
|---|---|---|
| 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 K2200M has 4 GB. The Quadro K2200M 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 K2200M) — the Quadro K2200M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200M |
|---|---|---|
| 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% |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID K520 draws 225W versus the Quadro K2200M's 65W — a 110.3% difference. The Quadro K2200M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID K520) vs 350W (Quadro K2200M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 65W-71% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 15.6 | 54.4+249% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K2200M is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2013).
| Feature | GRID K520 | Quadro K2200M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3599 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | — |
| Codename | GK104 | GM107 |
| Release | July 23 2013 | July 19 2014 |
| Ranking | #540 | #539 |
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 K2200M
