Quadro K2200M vs T400
Quadro K2200M
Popular choices:
T400
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 Quadro K2200M is positioned at rank 27 and the T400 is on rank 80, 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 Quadro K2200M
Performance Per Dollar T400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The T400 is significantly newer (2021 vs 2014). The T400 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro K2200M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The T400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K2200M.
| Insight | Quadro K2200M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the T400 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 Quadro K2200M and T400
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.
T400
The T400 is manufactured by an unknown manufacturer. It was released in May 6 2021. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 420 MHz to 1425 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,609 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K2200M scores 3,535 and the T400 reaches 3,609 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K2200M is built on Maxwell while the T400 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 640 (Quadro K2200M) vs 384 (T400). Raw compute: 0.8538 TFLOPS (Quadro K2200M) vs 1.094 TFLOPS (T400).
| Feature | Quadro K2200M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,535 | 3,609+2% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 640+67% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.8538 TFLOPS | 1.094 TFLOPS+28% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40+67% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 384 KB+20% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K2200M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro K2200M) vs 1 MB (T400) — the Quadro K2200M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K2200M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 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 T400's 30W — a 73.7% difference. The T400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K2200M) vs 350W (T400). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro K2200M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 65W | 30W-54% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Perf/Watt | 54.4 | 120.3+121% |
Value Analysis
The T400 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2014).
| Feature | Quadro K2200M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $180 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $179 |
| Codename | GM107 | TU117 |
| Release | July 19 2014 | May 6 2021 |
| Ranking | #539 | #532 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K2200M and T400
