Quadro M2200 vs Tesla K20Xm
Quadro M2200
Popular choices:
Tesla K20Xm
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 Tesla K20Xm is on rank 100, so the Tesla K20Xm 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 Tesla K20Xm
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla K20Xm is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.5% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (6 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro M2200.
| Insight | Quadro M2200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro M2200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro M2200 holds the technical lead. Priced at $70 (vs $7,699), it costs 99% less, resulting in a 10626.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro M2200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+10626.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($70) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($7,699) |
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 Tesla K20Xm
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.
Tesla K20Xm
The Tesla K20Xm is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 12 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 732 MHz. It has 2688 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 235W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,403 points. Launch price was $7,699.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M2200 scores 4,294 and the Tesla K20Xm reaches 4,403 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M2200 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Tesla K20Xm uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,024 (Quadro M2200) vs 2,688 (Tesla K20Xm). Raw compute: 2.122 TFLOPS (Quadro M2200) vs 3.935 TFLOPS (Tesla K20Xm).
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,294 | 4,403+3% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024 | 2688+163% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.122 TFLOPS | 3.935 TFLOPS+85% |
| ROPs | 32 | 48+50% |
| TMUs | 64 | 224+250% |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB+71% | 224 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Quadro M2200 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Tesla K20Xm has 6 GB. The Tesla K20Xm offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Quadro M2200) vs 1.5 MB (Tesla K20Xm) — the Tesla K20Xm has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 6 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M2200 draws 55W versus the Tesla K20Xm's 235W — a 124.1% difference. The Quadro M2200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M2200) vs 350W (Tesla K20Xm). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-77% | 235W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 78.1+318% | 18.7 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M2200 launched at $500 MSRP and currently averages $70, while the Tesla K20Xm launched at $7699. The Quadro M2200 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2012).
| Feature | Quadro M2200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $500-94% | $7699 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $70 | — |
| Codename | GM206 | GK110 |
| Release | January 11 2017 | November 12 2012 |
| Ranking | #479 | #473 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M2200 and Tesla K20Xm
