
Quadro M2200 vs FirePro W7000

Quadro M2200
Popular choices:

FirePro W7000
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 M2200 is positioned at rank 158 and the FirePro W7000 is on rank 223, so the Quadro M2200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M2200
Performance Per Dollar FirePro W7000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro W7000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro M2200.
| Insight | Quadro M2200 | FirePro W7000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The FirePro W7000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the FirePro W7000 holds the technical lead. Priced at $50 (vs $70), it costs 29% less, resulting in a 40.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro M2200 | FirePro W7000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+40.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($70) | ✅More affordable ($50) |
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 M2200 and FirePro W7000

Quadro M2200
The Quadro M2200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 11 2017. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 695 MHz to 1036 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,294 points.

FirePro W7000
The FirePro W7000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 13 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 950 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,304 points. Launch price was $899.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M2200 scores 4,294 and the FirePro W7000 reaches 4,304 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M2200 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the FirePro W7000 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,024 (Quadro M2200) vs 1,280 (FirePro W7000). Raw compute: 2.122 TFLOPS (Quadro M2200) vs 2.432 TFLOPS (FirePro W7000).
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | FirePro W7000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,294 | 4,304 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024 | 1280+25% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.122 TFLOPS | 2.432 TFLOPS+15% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 80+25% |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB+20% | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | FirePro W7000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 1 MB (Quadro M2200) vs 0.5 MB (FirePro W7000) — the Quadro M2200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | FirePro W7000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (Quadro M2200) vs 12 (FirePro W7000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 6.
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | FirePro W7000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+17% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 6+50% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M2200) vs VCE 1.0 (FirePro W7000). Decoder: 2nd Gen NVDEC vs UVD. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC (Quadro M2200) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FirePro W7000).
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | FirePro W7000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | 2nd Gen NVDEC | UVD |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M2200 draws 55W versus the FirePro W7000's 150W — a 92.7% difference. The Quadro M2200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M2200) vs 350W (FirePro W7000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 90°C.
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | FirePro W7000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-63% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 242mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C-11% | 90°C |
| Perf/Watt | 78.1+172% | 28.7 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M2200 launched at $500 MSRP and currently averages $70, while the FirePro W7000 launched at $899 and now averages $50. The FirePro W7000 costs 28.6% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 61.3 (Quadro M2200) vs 86.1 (FirePro W7000) — the FirePro W7000 offers 40.5% better value. The Quadro M2200 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2012).
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | FirePro W7000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $500-44% | $899 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $70 | $50-29% |
| Performance per Dollar | 61.3 | 86.1+40% |
| Codename | GM206 | Pitcairn |
| Release | January 11 2017 | June 13 2012 |
| Ranking | #479 | #477 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















