A $200 stereo receiver will outperform a $200 surround receiver, no doubt about it.
But the marantz is an ~$1100 surround receiver that delives a whopping 210w into a 4 ohm load.
I've owned many Marantz receivers and all of them are only rated for 6 Ohm nominal operation, so the 4 ohm rating is basically irrelevant. My 8300, which is 15lbs heavier than that receiver, struggles with 4 Ohm loads in a large room.
One thing to note is that it has a power supply designed to power seven channels, but it only needs to drive two then you have plenty of extra current ;P
Sorry, but that isn't a
benefit 
Something designed to handle only 2 channels will usually do a better job at it since everything is dedicated to just those two. The rated power for most receivers, even Marantz, is generally the 2ch rating. So if it is 200w, then that is what you will get in stereo and it will drop when multiple channels are driven. For a stereo only setup, there is no reason to go with a multichannel receiver. If the intent is to eventually move to a 5.1 or greater setup, then this it would be the way to go.
Additionally, since it's a surround receiver rather than a traditional stereo receiver, it has things like processing that will allow you to set up your speaker delays and levels automatically, and integrate a subwoofer into the system should you ever so choose.
In a stereo setup you have no delays since there are no other speakers to compensate for.
All of the stereo receivers I've seen in recent years have a sub pre-out as well, just no x-over because there is no internal processing; so you need a sub with its own x-over which the overwhelming majority of subs have.
The Outlaw RR2150 has a sub pre-out with variable x-over if internal x-over is desired.
