AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 compare to the AMD Radeon R7 350 in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro K1200 scores 8,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Radeon R7 350 scores 7,792. This gives the Quadro K1200 a 13.3% advantage in that workload.

Q: Which card wins in the Vulkan benchmark, and by how much?

A: The Quadro K1200 also wins the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 7,698 versus the R7 350's 7,057. The delta is 9.1% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K1200 has an average benchmark score of 8,265, while the Radeon R7 350 averages 7,425. The Quadro sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, and the R7 350 sits at the 40th percentile.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what is the memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two cards?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45 W with a suggested power supply of 200 W. The Radeon R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested power supply of 250 W.

Q: What process node are both GPUs built on?

A: Both the Quadro K1200 and the Radeon R7 350 are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro uses the GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors, while the R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip with 1,500 million transistors.

The Verdict

The database shows a clear overall winner in the NVIDIA Quadro K1200. It wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, with a 13.3% lead in OpenCL and a 9.1% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 8,265 is 11.3% higher than the R7 350's 7,425. The Quadro also holds a higher percentile ranking at 43 versus 40.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the Quadro K1200 is the pick. Its FP32 performance reaches 1,057.8 GFLOPS, compared to 819.2 GFLOPS for the R7 350, a 29% advantage. The Quadro also offers double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, which matters for larger datasets.

The Radeon R7 350's strongest argument is its bus interface. It uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. For systems with PCIe 3.0 slots, this can reduce transfer overhead, though the benchmark data does not isolate this effect. The R7 350 also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0), but both are effectively entry-level for modern DX12 titles.

Users with an existing PCIe 2.0 platform should choose the Quadro K1200 without hesitation. Users on PCIe 3.0 platforms who value the newer interface and slightly higher TDP headroom might consider the R7 350, but the benchmark evidence favors the NVIDIA card in every measured workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains two tests, and the Quadro K1200 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 8,831 against the R7 350's 7,792. The 1,039-point gap translates to a 13.3% delta, which is a substantial margin for compute-oriented tasks. OpenCL workloads often stress raw shader throughput, and the Quadro's higher clock rates contribute to this result.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro scores 7,698 versus 7,057 for the R7 350. The 641-point difference is a 9.1% delta. Vulkan tests tend to emphasize driver efficiency and memory subsystem behavior. The Quadro's higher memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s likely plays a role here.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The Quadro's 8,265 average is 840 points above the R7 350's 7,425. When placed against its nearest rivals, the Quadro sits within 1.7% of the AMD Radeon R9 M360 and 1.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M. The R7 350, meanwhile, trails the Intel Arc A310 by 1.7% and sits 0.2% below the Intel UHD Graphics 750.

The pixel and texture rates also favor the Quadro. It achieves 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s, versus 12.80 GPixel/s and 25.60 GTexel/s for the R7 350. These are 29% and 29% advantages, respectively, which directly impacts fill-rate-bound scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several measurable specifications. Memory capacity is the most obvious: the Quadro K1200 has 4 GB, the R7 350 has 2 GB. Memory bandwidth also differs, with the Quadro at 80.19 GB/s and the R7 350 at 72.00 GB/s. The memory clock differs as well: the Quadro runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the R7 350 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

The GPU clocks are another differentiator. The Quadro has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz. The R7 350 has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database, so its operating frequency cannot be compared directly.

The TDP values differ: 45 W for the Quadro versus 55 W for the R7 350. The suggested power supply also differs, at 200 W for the Quadro and 250 W for the R7 350. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors.

The bus interface is a notable difference. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R7 350 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the R7 350 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Physical dimensions vary slightly. The Quadro is 160 mm (6.3 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) tall. The R7 350 is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long, with no recorded height.

Release dates differ by about 18 months: the Quadro launched on 2015-01-27, and the R7 350 launched on 2016-07-05. Both are marked as end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip based on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture. The R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip based on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture.

The transistor counts differ significantly. The Quadro's GM107 packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The R7 350's Cape Verde packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding 12.2M per mm². Both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process.

The shading unit counts are identical at 512, and both have 32 texture mapping units and 16 ROPs. However, the clock rates differ, which explains the performance gap. The Quadro's higher clocks produce 1,057.8 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 819.2 GFLOPS for the R7 350.

API support shows some differences. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan version difference is notable: the Quadro's 1.4 support is newer than the R7 350's 1.2.170.

The generation labels in the database place the Quadro in the "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" generation despite its Maxwell architecture, while the R7 350 belongs to the "Pirate Islands (R7 300)" generation. The Quadro's predecessor is listed as Quadro Fermi and its successor as Quadro Maxwell. The R7 350's predecessor is Volcanic Islands and its successor is Arctic Islands.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and neither supports FP16 operations in the database records.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K1200 wins in every benchmark category recorded. In OpenCL, its 13.3% lead makes it the clear choice for compute workloads that use OpenCL kernels. The higher FP32 throughput of 1,057.8 GFLOPS versus 819.2 GFLOPS supports this advantage. The larger 4 GB frame buffer also gives it an edge in memory-intensive compute tasks that exceed 2 GB.

In Vulkan, the Quadro's 9.1% lead suggests better driver optimization for modern graphics APIs. The higher memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s helps in texture-heavy scenes. The Quadro's newer Vulkan 1.4 support also provides better API coverage compared to the R7 350's Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Quadro's lower TDP of 45 W versus 55 W makes it more suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems. Its suggested power supply of 200 W is also more modest than the R7 350's 250 W requirement.

The R7 350's wins are narrower. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is newer than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16, which can reduce data transfer bottlenecks on modern motherboards. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is slightly newer than the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0), though both are limited implementations.

The R7 350 also offers a more conventional display output set with DVI and HDMI, which may be more convenient for older monitors. The Quadro's 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs require adapters for DVI or HDMI connections.

For users who prioritize compute performance, memory capacity, and thermal efficiency, the Quadro K1200 is the stronger choice. For users with PCIe 3.0-only systems who need native DVI or HDMI output and prefer the slightly newer DirectX feature level, the R7 350 has niche appeal, but the recorded benchmarks do not show it winning any measured workload.