AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 records an average benchmark score of 8265, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975. The Quadro K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, whereas the Radeon R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the only head-to-head benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K1200 scores 8831 versus 6975 for the R5 M240. That is a 26.6% difference in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and what type is it?

A: The Quadro K1200 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. However, the Quadro K1200 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the R5 M240 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: What API levels do these GPUs support?

A: The Quadro K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel and texture rates?

A: The Quadro K1200 achieves 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s. The R5 M240 achieves 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card is roughly twice as fast in pixel throughput and about 60% faster in texture throughput.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but they diverge significantly in transistor count and die size. The Quadro K1200 packs 1,870 million transistors across a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The R5 M240 contains only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 12.3 million per mm².

The streaming processor count tells a clear story. The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates directly into compute throughput: the Quadro K1200 delivers 1,057.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R5 M240 manages 659.2 GFLOPS. The memory subsystem is equally lopsided. The Quadro K1200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M240 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s. That is a 5.5x difference in memory bandwidth.

Clock speeds are closer than the rest of the specs. The Quadro K1200 has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz, with memory running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The R5 M240 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The AMD part has a slightly higher base clock, but the NVIDIA part has a slightly higher boost clock. The interface also differs: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

The Quadro K1200 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W, drawing 45 W TDP. It has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The R5 M240 has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, or display outputs in the database. The Quadro K1200 measures 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The R5 M240 has no dimensions recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8831, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975. The Quadro wins with a 26.6% advantage. This is a decisive margin, not a close call. For context, the Quadro K1200's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8325, 0.7% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8167, 1.2% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8135, 1.6% slower), and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8129, 1.7% slower). The Quadro sits slightly above all of these, with its average score of 8265.

The R5 M240's nearest rivals are a different group. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M scores 6946 (0.4% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 7023 (0.7% faster), the NVIDIA T600 scores 7035 (0.8% faster), and the AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830 (2.1% slower). The R5 M240's average of 6975 places it right in the middle of this pack. In the OpenCL test, the R5 M240 is 26.6% behind the Quadro K1200, which is a substantial gap. The Quadro's score is closer to its own rivals than the R5's score is to the Quadro, meaning the two cards operate in different performance tiers entirely.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is only recorded for the Quadro K1200, which scores 7698. The R5 M240 has no Vulkan result in the database. This absence is notable because the Quadro's Vulkan score is only about 13% lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting consistent performance across API types. The R5 M240's lack of a Vulkan result means its cross-API behavior cannot be assessed from the recorded data.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is the better performer in every measurable way. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 26.6%, has more than double the pixel throughput, over 60% higher texture throughput, and 60% higher FP32 compute. Its memory bandwidth is 5.5x higher. The Quadro K1200 also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170) and offers four display outputs, which the R5 M240 lacks entirely.

The R5 M240 is not without merit, but its merits are limited to specific contexts. It is a smaller chip with a lower transistor count, which could imply lower power draw, though the database does not list a TDP for the R5 M240. The Quadro K1200 is listed at 45 W, so the R5 M240 might consume less, but no number is available to confirm that. The R5 M240 has a higher base clock (1000 MHz versus 954 MHz) and uses PCIe 3.0, which offers more bandwidth per lane than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 connection. However, the R5's narrower x8 interface still provides less total bandwidth than the Quadro's x16 interface.

For a user choosing between these two end-of-life GPUs, the Quadro K1200 is the obvious pick for any compute or graphics workload. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory is four times larger than the R5's 1 GB DDR3, and its bandwidth advantage is enormous. The Quadro also has professional-grade display outputs (four mini-DisplayPort 1.2), making it suitable for multi-monitor setups. The R5 M240, with no recorded display outputs and half the shading units, appears to be a low-end mobile or OEM part with limited use cases.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: NVIDIA GM107 versus AMD Jet
• Architecture: Maxwell versus GCN 1.0
• Generation: Quadro Kepler (Kx200) versus Gem System (R5 M200)
• Transistors: 1,870 million versus 690 million
• Die Size: 148 mm² versus 56 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.6M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 954 MHz versus 1000 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1033 MHz versus 1030 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB versus 1024 MB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 versus DDR3
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 80.19 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s
• Shading Units: 512 versus 320
• TMUs: 32 versus 20
• ROPs: 16 versus 8
• Pixel Rate: 16.53 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 33.06 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,057.8 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 45 W versus not listed
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus not listed
• Power Connectors: None versus not listed
• Suggested PSU: 200 W versus not listed
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus not listed
• Vulkan Version: 1.4 versus 1.2.170
• DirectX Version: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1)
• Dimensions: 160 mm x 69 mm versus not listed
• Release Date: 2015-01-27 versus 2014-09-17
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi versus Solar System
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell versus Polaris Mobile
• Average Benchmark Score: 8265 versus 6975
• Percentile: 43 versus 39

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 wins in every benchmark category recorded. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 26.6%. It wins on raw compute with 1,057.8 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS. It wins on memory bandwidth with 80.19 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. It wins on pixel rate (16.53 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s) and texture rate (33.06 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s). It also wins on API support, offering Vulkan 1.4 versus the R5's 1.2.170, and it provides four display outputs while the R5 has none listed.

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 wins in a few narrow areas. It has a higher base clock (1000 MHz versus 954 MHz). It uses PCIe 3.0, which is a newer generation than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0, though the x8 width limits its practical advantage. Its DirectX support is marginally newer (12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)). And its smaller die and lower transistor count could imply lower power consumption, though no TDP is listed to confirm this. The R5 M240 also has a lower average benchmark score, but it sits close to its own rivals (within 2.1% of the FirePro M5100 and within 0.8% of the T600), meaning it is competitive in its own tier.

For a workload requiring high memory bandwidth, such as large texture loads or compute tasks with large datasets, the Quadro K1200 is the only reasonable choice. For a workload requiring multiple display outputs on a professional workstation, the Quadro's four mini-DisplayPort connectors are decisive. For a workload that is extremely power-sensitive and does not need much memory or compute, the R5 M240's smaller design might be preferable, but the database does not provide enough data to confirm a power advantage. The recorded data shows one winner: the Quadro K1200.