Intel Arc A380 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The Intel Arc A380 and NVIDIA Quadro K1200 represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The A380, built on Intel’s modern Xe-HPG architecture, is a generation ahead in raw compute and API support, while the K1200 is a legacy professional card from the Maxwell era. In the head-to-head results available, the A380 dominates, but the K1200’s single-slot, low-power profile still holds niche value for specific legacy workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmark results between these cards are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and both are decisive wins for the Intel Arc A380. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A380 scores 38,224 against the K1200’s 8,831. That is a delta of 332.8%, meaning the A380 delivers over four times the compute performance in this test. The margin is even larger in Geekbench Vulkan, where the A380 posts 36,736 versus the K1200’s 7,698, a 377.2% advantage. These aren’t marginal improvements; they represent a generational leap in parallel processing capability.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the A380 has a much richer data set. Its average benchmark score across all tested workloads is 8,558, while the K1200 averages 8,265. The A380’s percentile ranking among all GPUs is 44, slightly above the K1200’s 43. While the average scores are close, that’s misleading because the A380’s scores are dragged down by older DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 tests where it scores 73 and 37 respectively. In modern workloads like 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the A380 scores 808, and in Passmark G3D it hits 6,252. The K1200 has no corresponding modern benchmark entries in the data, so its average is based solely on the two Geekbench tests where it loses badly.

The nearest rival data puts both cards in a similar performance tier. The A380’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W5170M, which scores 8,595, just 0.4% higher. The K1200’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375X at 8,325, which is 0.7% higher. Both cards sit in the mid-40th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they are neither low-end nor high-end in the grand scheme. However, the A380’s wins in compute and modern APIs give it a clear functional edge over the K1200.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380 wins in every measurable compute scenario. Its FP32 throughput is 4.198 TFLOPS versus the K1200’s 1,057.8 GFLOPS, making it roughly four times faster in raw single-precision math. This translates directly to the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results. The A380 also supports hardware ray tracing with 8 dedicated RT cores, a feature the K1200 lacks entirely. For any workload involving DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, or compute shaders, the A380 is the only viable option here.

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200’s strengths are not in performance but in physical and power characteristics. It draws a maximum of 45 W, compared to the A380’s 75 W, and requires no external power connectors. It is a single-slot card at 160 mm in length, while the A380 is dual-slot and 222 mm long. For a compact workstation or a system with strict power and space limits, the K1200 fits where the A380 cannot. It also has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, allowing multi-display setups out of the box. The A380 offers one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, which is also multi-display capable but uses a different connector mix.

In terms of software compatibility, the K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The K1200’s older feature set may be preferable for legacy CAD or professional applications that were optimized for Maxwell-era drivers, but the data does not include any specific professional benchmark to confirm that advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial. The Intel Arc A380 uses the DG2-128 chip built on TSMC’s 6 nm process, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die. The transistor density is 45.9 million per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm process, with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, translating to 12.6 million transistors per mm². The A380’s process advantage allows nearly four times the transistor count on a similar die area.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s. The A380’s memory clock is 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while the K1200 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The A380’s higher bandwidth is critical for texture-heavy and compute workloads.

The shader configuration also favors the A380. It has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, plus 8 RT cores. The K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no RT cores. Pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s for the A380 versus 16.53 GPixel/s for the K1200. Texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s. The A380 supports FP16 at 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the K1200 has no FP16 support listed. The A380 also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, whereas the K1200 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A380 wins decisively. Its FP32 throughput is 4.198 TFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS for the K1200. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A380 scores 38,224 against 8,831, a 332.8% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro K1200 support ray tracing?

A: No. The K1200 has no RT cores listed, while the A380 includes 8 RT cores. The A380 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the K1200 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45 W and requires no power connectors. The Intel Arc A380 has a TDP of 75 W and needs a single 8-pin power connector. The K1200 also has a lower suggested PSU of 200 W versus 250 W for the A380.

Q: Are these cards comparable in overall benchmark averages?

A: Yes, surprisingly close. The A380 averages 8,558 across all tests, and the K1200 averages 8,265. The A380’s percentile is 44 versus 43 for the K1200. However, this average masks the A380’s massive lead in modern compute tests.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The A380 has 186.0 GB/s from 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus. The K1200 has 80.19 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The A380’s bandwidth is over twice that of the K1200.

Q: Can the Quadro K1200 handle modern games?

A: Benchmark data suggests limited capability. The K1200 only has Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores, both below 9,000. Its DirectX 12 support is only at the 11_0 feature level, so it lacks modern rendering features like ray tracing and mesh shaders.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A380 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 in every shared benchmark and every architectural specification that matters for modern workloads. It has more than double the shading units, four times the FP32 throughput, and over twice the memory bandwidth. The 332.8% lead in OpenCL and 377.2% lead in Vulkan are not close calls. For any compute, rendering, or gaming task, the A380 is the superior choice.

The K1200’s only advantages are physical and power-related. It is a single-slot, 45 W card that requires no external power and fits in a 160 mm chassis. The A380 is dual-slot, 75 W, needs an 8-pin connector, and is 222 mm long. If a system cannot accommodate those requirements, the K1200 is the fallback. But that is a constraint-driven decision, not a performance one.

Given that both cards are end-of-life products, the choice depends on the workload. For anyone needing modern API support, high compute throughput, or ray tracing, the Intel Arc A380 is the only option that makes sense. For legacy professional environments where Maxwell-era driver stability and minimal power draw are paramount, the Quadro K1200 still has a place. Otherwise, the A380’s benchmark results speak for themselves.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A380 | NVIDIA Quadro K1200 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 954 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2050 MHz | 1033 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 96 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 186.0 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 512 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 8 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 65.60 GPixel/s | 16.53 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 131.2 GTexel/s | 33.06 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.198 TFLOPS | 1,057.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 75 W | 45 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Length | 222 mm (8.7 inches) | 160 mm (6.3 inches) |

| Height | 114 mm (4.5 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Width | 42 mm (1.7 inches) | Not specified |