AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and AMD Radeon R7 250 are both end-of-life, single-slot cards from the 28 nm era, but they target very different workloads. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute, with the Quadro K1200 taking the sole head-to-head benchmark by a significant margin, though the R7 250 holds its own in specific areas like API support and bus interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively in favor of the NVIDIA Quadro K1200. The Quadro scores 8831 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 manages 7557 points. This translates to a 16.9% delta in favor of the NVIDIA card, a substantial gap that highlights the K1200's superior compute throughput.

This performance difference is rooted in the cards' respective specifications. The Quadro K1200 outputs 1,057.8 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, whereas the R7 250 delivers 947.2 GFLOPS. That is a difference of roughly 110 GFLOPS, which directly explains the 16.9% benchmark lead. The K1200 also holds advantages in pixel fill rate (16.53 GPixel/s vs. 14.80 GPixel/s) and texture fill rate (33.06 GTexel/s vs. 29.60 GTexel/s), reinforcing its dominance in raw rasterization and compute tasks.

The R7 250's average benchmark score of 7557 places it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K1200's average of 8265 puts it in the 43rd percentile. The percentile difference is narrow, but the delta between their average scores is meaningful. The K1200's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (avg score 8325, delta -0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (avg score 8167, delta 1.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (avg score 8135, delta 1.6%). The R7 250, by contrast, sits near the Intel Arc A310 (avg score 7550, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (avg score 7580, delta -0.3%). This shows the K1200 is competing in a higher performance tier, while the R7 250 is positioned among lower-end parts.

It is worth remembering the R7 250 has no Vulkan benchmark result in the data, while the K1200 posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7698. This absence is telling—it suggests the AMD card may not have been tested or capable in that specific API workload, whereas the NVIDIA card shows credible Vulkan performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is significantly faster. It scores 8831 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 16.9% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 250's score of 7557.

Q: Do these cards have the same memory configuration?

A: No. The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 250 has only 1024 MB of DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The K1200's memory bandwidth is nearly three times higher.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a 45 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The R7 250 has a 55 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Neither card requires external power connectors.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Radeon R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 250 has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, but the K1200 has a newer Vulkan version.

Q: Are these cards the same physical size?

A: No. The Quadro K1200 is 160 mm (6.3 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high. The R7 250 is longer at 168 mm (6.6 inches), but its height is not specified in the data.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a slightly higher density at 12.6M transistors per mm², compared to the R7 250's 12.2M per mm². Both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 wins in every measurable performance category. It dominates in OpenCL compute with a 16.9% lead, and its memory subsystem is vastly superior: 4 GB of GDDR5 at 80.19 GB/s versus 1 GB of DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s. This makes the K1200 the clear choice for memory-intensive workloads like large datasets, high-resolution textures, or compute tasks that benefit from fast VRAM. Its higher pixel and texture rates also give it an edge in rendering tasks that push fill rate limits.

The AMD Radeon R7 250, while losing on raw performance, has a few structural advantages. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, whereas the Quadro K1200 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. On a modern motherboard, the R7 250's bus interface offers twice the theoretical bandwidth for data transfer, which can matter in some CPU-to-GPU communication scenarios. The R7 250 also supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a slightly higher feature level than the K1200's DirectX 12 (11_0), which could be relevant for specific legacy game compatibility or certain API feature flags. Additionally, the R7 250 has a lower transistor count (1,500 million vs. 1,870 million) and a smaller die size (123 mm² vs. 148 mm²), which may be a consideration for low-power embedded designs, though its TDP is actually higher at 55 W vs. 45 W.

The R7 250's display outputs include a DVI and HDMI 1.4a port alongside a DisplayPort 1.2, which might be more convenient for connecting older monitors without adapters. The Quadro K1200, by contrast, offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which is a professional workstation configuration that requires mini-DisplayPort-to-standard cables or adapters for typical displays.

Specification Differences

The core compute specifications differ considerably. The Quadro K1200 has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz, while the R7 250's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. Both cards have the same number of shading units (512), TMUs (32), and ROPs (16), so the K1200's advantage comes from its higher clock speeds and memory performance.

Memory is a major differentiator. The K1200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 28.80 GB/s. The memory clock is also different: the K1200 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the R7 250 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The K1200's memory is both larger and faster, making it the clear winner for any task that relies on VRAM capacity or bandwidth.

Power and physical specs also differ. The K1200 has a 45 W TDP and a 200 W suggested PSU, while the R7 250 has a 55 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU. Both are single-slot and require no external power connectors. The K1200 is shorter at 160 mm versus the R7 250's 168 mm, but the R7 250's height is not provided. The K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R7 250 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Quadro K1200 uses NVIDIA's GM107 chip, based on the Maxwell architecture, and is part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. The R7 250 uses AMD's Cape Verde chip, based on GCN 1.0, and belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the K1200 packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, while the R7 250 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Transistor densities are close (12.6M/mm² vs. 12.2M/mm²), but the K1200 has more transistors overall.

The K1200's Maxwell architecture is newer, and its successor is listed as Quadro Maxwell, while its predecessor is Quadro Fermi. The R7 250's predecessor is Sea Islands and its successor is Pirate Islands. The K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R7 250 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The K1200's display output configuration (four mini-DisplayPort 1.2) is typical of professional workstation cards, whereas the R7 250's mixed outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2) are more consumer-oriented.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is the superior performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 16.9%, has nearly three times the memory bandwidth, and offers four times the VRAM capacity. For any task involving OpenCL compute, large textures, or high-resolution buffers, the K1200 is the right choice. Its 45 W TDP and 200 W suggested PSU also make it a more power-efficient option than the R7 250, despite delivering higher performance. The K1200's 43rd percentile ranking and its position among rivals like the GTX 980 and R9 M375X confirm it is a stronger part overall.

The AMD Radeon R7 250 should only be considered if you specifically need its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, its DVI and HDMI outputs, or its slightly higher DirectX feature level of 11_1. It is a lower-tier card (41st percentile) that sits near the Intel Arc A310 and GTX 1650 in performance, and it loses to the K1200 in every compute metric. For a builder choosing between these two, the Quadro K1200 is the clear pick unless there is a hard requirement for the R7 250's specific interface or output options. The R7 250's 55 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU also make it more demanding on the power supply, which is another point in the K1200's favor. In short: pick the K1200 for performance, pick the R7 250 only for niche compatibility reasons.