Quadro K2200M vs Radeon Pro 560

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.

Quadro K2200M vs Radeon Pro 560 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Quadro K2200M vs Radeon Pro 560: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Quadro K2200M

2014

Why buy it

✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Draws 65W instead of 75W, a 10W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro 560 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌2014 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 7.0 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $500 MSRP).

Radeon Pro 560

2017

Why buy it

✅25.4% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 7.0 vs 0 G3D/$ ($500 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅More future proof: GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2017 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌15.4% higher power demand at 75W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Radeon Pro 560 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 25.4% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. PassMark G3D leans toward Quadro K2200M instead at 3,535 vs 3,475, so for this question the real-game FPS result matters more than the synthetic split.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

Quadro K2200M is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: 4 GB vs 2 GB of VRAM. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

Radeon Pro 560 makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Radeon Pro 560 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, Quadro K2200M has the stronger long-term case.

Quadro K2200M vs Radeon Pro 560 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Radeon Pro 560

The Radeon Pro 560 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 18 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 907 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,475 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Quadro K2200M scores 3,535 and the Radeon Pro 560 reaches 3,475 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K2200M is built on Maxwell while the Radeon Pro 560 uses GCN 4.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 640 (Quadro K2200M) vs 1,024 (Radeon Pro 560). Raw compute: 0.8538 TFLOPS (Quadro K2200M) vs 1.858 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 560).

Feature	Quadro K2200M	Radeon Pro 560
G3D Mark Score	3,535+2%	3,475
Architecture	Maxwell	GCN 4.0
Process Node	28 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	640	1024+60%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.8538 TFLOPS	1.858 TFLOPS+118%
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	40	64+60%
L1 Cache	320 KB+25%	256 KB
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro K2200M	Radeon Pro 560
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Quadro K2200M has 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro 560 carries 2 GB. Quadro K2200M 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 Quadro K2200M and 64-bit on the Radeon Pro 560. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro K2200M) vs 1 MB (Radeon Pro 560) — the Quadro K2200M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro K2200M	Radeon Pro 560
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro K2200M draws 65W versus the Radeon Pro 560's 75W — a 14.3% difference. The Quadro K2200M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K2200M) vs 350W (Radeon Pro 560). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	Quadro K2200M	Radeon Pro 560
TDP	65W-13%	75W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Perf/Watt	54.4+17%	46.3

💰

Value Analysis

The newer card here is Radeon Pro 560 (2017 vs 2014).

Feature	Quadro K2200M	Radeon Pro 560
MSRP	—	$500
Codename	GM107	Polaris 21
Release	July 19 2014	April 18 2017
Ranking	#539	#543

Search Quadro K2200M on Amazon

Search Radeon Pro 560 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.