Quadro P2200 vs Quadro M5000
Quadro P2200
Popular choices:
Quadro M5000
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 P2200 is positioned at rank 72 and the Quadro M5000 is on rank 147, 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 P2200
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M5000
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 P2200 | Quadro M5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.2%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (16nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (5 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+60%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 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 P2200 | Quadro M5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+89.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($227) | ✅More affordable ($120) |
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 P2200 and Quadro M5000
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro P2200 scores 9,386 and the Quadro M5000 reaches 9,406 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro P2200 is built on Pascal while the Quadro M5000 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 16 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (Quadro P2200) vs 2,048 (Quadro M5000). Raw compute: 3.822 TFLOPS (Quadro P2200) vs 4.252 TFLOPS (Quadro M5000). Boost clocks: 1493 MHz vs 1038 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro P2200 | Quadro M5000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 9,386 | 9,406 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280 | 2048+60% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.822 TFLOPS | 4.252 TFLOPS+11% |
| Boost Clock | 1493 MHz+44% | 1038 MHz |
| ROPs | 40 | 64+60% |
| TMUs | 80 | 128+60% |
| L1 Cache | 480 KB | 768 KB+60% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB | 2 MB+60% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro P2200 | Quadro M5000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 P2200 comes with 5 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M5000 has 8 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: 1.25 MB (Quadro P2200) vs 2 MB (Quadro M5000) — the Quadro M5000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro P2200 | Quadro M5000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 5 GB | 8 GB+60% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB | 2 MB+60% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Quadro P2200) vs 12.1 (Quadro M5000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro P2200 | Quadro M5000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+27% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 6th Gen NVENC (Quadro P2200) vs NVENC 4.0 (Quadro M5000). Decoder: 3rd Gen NVDEC vs PureVideo HD VP6. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro P2200) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro M5000).
| Feature | Quadro P2200 | Quadro M5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 6th Gen NVENC | NVENC 4.0 |
| Decoder | 3rd Gen NVDEC | PureVideo HD VP6 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro P2200 draws 75W versus the Quadro M5000's 150W — a 66.7% difference. The Quadro P2200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro P2200) vs 500W (Quadro M5000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 201mm vs 267mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | Quadro P2200 | Quadro M5000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-50% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 201mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C-6% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 125.1+100% | 62.7 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro P2200 launched at $429 MSRP and currently averages $227, while the Quadro M5000 launched at $999 and now averages $120. The Quadro M5000 costs 47.1% less ($107 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 41.3 (Quadro P2200) vs 78.4 (Quadro M5000) — the Quadro M5000 offers 89.8% better value. The Quadro P2200 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | Quadro P2200 | Quadro M5000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $429-57% | $999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $227 | $120-47% |
| Performance per Dollar | 41.3 | 78.4+90% |
| Codename | GP106 | GM204 |
| Release | June 10 2019 | June 29 2015 |
| Ranking | #281 | #280 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro P2200 and Quadro M5000
