Quadro M5000 vs Quadro P2200
Quadro M5000
Popular choices:
Quadro P2200
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 M5000 is positioned at rank 147 and the Quadro P2200 is on rank 72, so the Quadro P2200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M5000
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P2200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro P2200 uses modern memory architecture. The Quadro P2200 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro M5000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M5000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.2% higher G3D Mark score and 60% more VRAM (8 GB vs 5 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro P2200.
| Insight | Quadro M5000 | Quadro P2200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | Pascal (2016−2021) (16nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+60%) | 🎮 High Capacity (5 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro M5000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $120 versus $227 for the Quadro P2200, it costs 47% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 89.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro M5000 | Quadro P2200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+89.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($120) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($227) |
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 M5000 and Quadro P2200
Quadro M5000
The Quadro M5000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 29 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 861 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,406 points. Launch price was $2,856.99.
Quadro P2200
The Quadro P2200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 10 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1493 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,386 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M5000 scores 9,406 and the Quadro P2200 reaches 9,386 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M5000 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Quadro P2200 uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (Quadro M5000) vs 1,280 (Quadro P2200). Raw compute: 4.252 TFLOPS (Quadro M5000) vs 3.822 TFLOPS (Quadro P2200). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1493 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | Quadro P2200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 9,406 | 9,386 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+60% | 1280 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.252 TFLOPS+11% | 3.822 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1493 MHz+44% |
| ROPs | 64+60% | 40 |
| TMUs | 128+60% | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB+60% | 480 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+60% | 1.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | Quadro P2200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 M5000 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro P2200 has 5 GB. The Quadro M5000 offers 60% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro M5000) vs 1.25 MB (Quadro P2200) — the Quadro M5000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | Quadro P2200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+60% | 5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+60% | 1.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Quadro M5000) vs 12.1 (Quadro P2200). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | Quadro P2200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.4+27% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 4.0 (Quadro M5000) vs 6th Gen NVENC (Quadro P2200). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP6 vs 3rd Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro M5000) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro P2200).
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | Quadro P2200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 4.0 | 6th Gen NVENC |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP6 | 3rd Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M5000 draws 150W versus the Quadro P2200's 75W — a 66.7% difference. The Quadro P2200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro M5000) vs 500W (Quadro P2200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 201mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | Quadro P2200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 75W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 201mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 75°C-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 62.7 | 125.1+100% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M5000 launched at $999 MSRP and currently averages $120, while the Quadro P2200 launched at $429 and now averages $227. The Quadro M5000 costs 47.1% less ($107 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 78.4 (Quadro M5000) vs 41.3 (Quadro P2200) — the Quadro M5000 offers 89.8% better value. The Quadro P2200 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | Quadro P2200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $999 | $429-57% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $120-47% | $227 |
| Performance per Dollar | 78.4+90% | 41.3 |
| Codename | GM204 | GP106 |
| Release | June 29 2015 | June 10 2019 |
| Ranking | #280 | #281 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M5000 and Quadro P2200
