AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 across both benchmark workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K1200 scores 8,831 points against the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile's 7,435 points, a lead of 18.8 percent. That is not a marginal edge; it represents a substantial performance gap in compute throughput, one that places the Quadro comfortably ahead in raw number crunching. The Vulkan results tighten the picture somewhat, but the outcome remains unchanged: the Quadro K1200 posts 7,698 points versus 7,970 for the Vega 8 Mobile, a 10.4 percent advantage. While the Vulkan delta is smaller, it still confirms NVIDIA's dominance in this pairing.

Context from the database's nearest rival lists reinforces the significance of these margins. The Quadro K1200's average benchmark score sits at 8,265, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, which trails by 0.7 percent, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, which the Quadro actually leads by 1.2 percent. That last comparison is striking: the Quadro K1200, a workstation-focused card, edges out a high-end desktop gaming GPU from the same era in average benchmark score. Meanwhile, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile averages 7,203 points, good for the 39th percentile. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around it, with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 trailing by just 0.3 percent and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 sitting 0.5 percent behind. The Vega 8 Mobile's position among these rivals shows it is competitive with entry-level discrete GPUs, but it does not reach the Quadro's tier.

Looking at the individual workload deltas, the OpenCL gap of 18.8 percent is the headline number. OpenCL workloads often reflect general compute capability, and the Quadro's 1,057.8 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus the Vega 8 Mobile's 1,127.4 GFLOPS might suggest the AMD part should win, but benchmark results indicate otherwise. The Vega 8 Mobile's higher theoretical FP32 figure does not translate into a higher score, likely due to memory constraints and driver overhead in the OpenCL path. The Vulkan gap of 10.4 percent narrows the margin, but the Quadro still holds a comfortable lead. Both GPUs share the same shading unit count at 512, but the Quadro doubles the ROP count to 16 versus 8 on the Vega 8 Mobile, and that hardware difference likely contributes to the consistent wins.

The wins tally reflects this clean sweep: the Quadro K1200 wins 2 benchmarks, the Vega 8 Mobile wins 0. There is no workload in the database where AMD's integrated part comes out ahead. Even in texture rate, where the Vega 8 Mobile posts 35.23 GTexel/s against the Quadro's 33.06 GTexel/s, the benchmark scores do not follow suit, suggesting that real-world workloads favor the Quadro's memory subsystem and driver efficiency over raw texture throughput. The pixel rate comparison is even more lopsided: the Quadro delivers 16.53 GPixel/s, nearly double the Vega 8 Mobile's 8.808 GPixel/s. That 87.7 percent advantage in pixel throughput aligns with the Quadro's higher ROP count and dedicated GDDR5 memory.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation: the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is the stronger GPU in this comparison. It wins both recorded benchmarks, holds a higher average score (8,265 versus 7,203), and sits in a higher percentile rank (43rd versus 39th). For users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Quadro delivers 18.8 percent and 10.4 percent better performance, respectively. The Quadro's dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth gives it a structural advantage over the Vega 8 Mobile's system-shared memory, whose bandwidth is system dependent. That dedicated memory pool is likely why the Quadro outperforms despite the Vega 8 Mobile's slightly higher FP32 throughput.

Who should pick the Quadro K1200? Anyone whose workload is dominated by compute tasks, especially OpenCL. The 18.8 percent OpenCL lead is the largest margin in this comparison, and the Quadro's 4 GB of GDDR5 ensures memory bandwidth is not a bottleneck. The card is end-of-life, but for a workstation context, it remains a capable performer, as evidenced by its 43rd percentile standing and its ability to edge out the GeForce GTX 980 in average score.

Who should pick the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile? The case is narrower. It is an integrated GPU with a 25 W TDP, versus the Quadro's 45 W, making it the lower-power option. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) compared to the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0), which matters for applications that leverage newer DirectX features. The Vega 8 Mobile's FP16 throughput of 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1) is a notable capability absent from the Quadro's spec sheet, and its texture rate is slightly higher at 35.23 GTexel/s. For lightweight workloads where power efficiency and integrated simplicity matter more than raw performance, the Vega 8 Mobile is the pick. But for benchmark-verified performance, the Quadro K1200 is the clear winner.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 wins with a score of 8,831 against the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile's 7,435, a delta of 18.8 percent.

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

A: The Quadro K1200 averages 8,265 points, while the Vega 8 Mobile averages 7,203 points. The Quadro also ranks higher in percentile, at 43rd versus 39th.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The Vega 8 Mobile wins 0 benchmarks, while the Quadro K1200 wins 2 (both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan).

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory configuration?

A: The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 8 Mobile uses system-shared memory, with its bandwidth described as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Quadro K1200 delivers 16.53 GPixel/s, nearly double the Vega 8 Mobile's 8.808 GPixel/s, consistent with the Quadro's 16 ROPs versus 8 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every hardware parameter. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts differ dramatically: the Quadro packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.6M transistors per mm², while the Vega 8 Mobile contains 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, with a density of 23.5M per mm². Clock speeds also tell different stories: the Quadro runs at a 954 MHz base and 1,033 MHz boost, whereas the Vega 8 Mobile has a 300 MHz base and a 1,101 MHz boost.

Memory is a fundamental split. The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth and a 1,253 MHz memory clock (5 Gbps effective). The Vega 8 Mobile uses system-shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, a shared bus, and bandwidth that is system dependent. The ROP count favors the Quadro at 16 versus 8, while both GPUs have 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. Pixel rate reflects the ROP difference: 16.53 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 8.808 GPixel/s for the Vega 8 Mobile. Texture rate slightly favors AMD at 35.23 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is close, with the Quadro at 1,057.8 GFLOPS and the Vega 8 Mobile at 1,127.4 GFLOPS, but only AMD lists FP16 capability at 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specs also diverge. The Quadro K1200 has a 45 W TDP, a single-slot design, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Vega 8 Mobile has a 25 W TDP and is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The Quadro uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 bus interface, while the Vega 8 Mobile uses an IGP bus interface. Display outputs differ as well: the Quadro offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the Vega 8 Mobile's outputs are portable device dependent. The Quadro measures 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height; the Vega 8 Mobile has no recorded dimensions. Release dates are separated by nearly four years, with the Quadro launching on 2015-01-27 and the Vega 8 Mobile on 2019-01-07. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile uses the GCN 5.0 architecture with the Raven-M chip, belonging to the Vega IGP (Raven Ridge-M) generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: Maxwell is a discrete GPU architecture optimized for dedicated memory and workstation tasks, while GCN 5.0 in this implementation is an integrated graphics processor sharing system memory.

The manufacturing differences are stark. TSMC fabricated the Quadro on a 28 nm node, while GlobalFoundries produced the Vega 8 Mobile on a 14 nm node. The newer process allows the Vega 8 Mobile to pack over twice as many transistors (4,940 million versus 1,870 million) into a larger die (210 mm² versus 148 mm²), achieving a higher transistor density of 23.5M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm². Despite the transistor advantage, the Vega 8 Mobile's integrated design limits its memory bandwidth to whatever the host system provides, which the database lists as system dependent, while the Quadro's dedicated GDDR5 ensures a fixed 80.19 GB/s.

Both architectures support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, but at different feature levels. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 8 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The Vega 8 Mobile's higher DirectX feature level is a meaningful architectural advantage for newer applications, but the Quadro's higher Vulkan version indicates a more mature Vulkan driver stack. In terms of FP16, the Vega 8 Mobile lists 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1), a capability absent from the Quadro's specifications. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi, and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell; the Vega 8 Mobile's predecessor is the GCN 3.0 IGP, and its successor is the Navi II IGP. These lineage differences reflect NVIDIA's discrete workstation focus and AMD's integrated graphics trajectory, respectively.