NVIDIA GeForce 945M vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available compares the two GPUs in Geekbench OpenCL, a compute-oriented workload. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8831, while the NVIDIA GeForce 945M scores 8099. This produces a 9% delta in favor of the Quadro K1200, making it the clear winner of the only direct comparison in the data. The magnitude of this lead is meaningful in context: a 9% advantage in a synthetic compute test often translates to noticeable differences in GPU-accelerated tasks such as rendering, simulation, or image processing.

However, the overall benchmark picture is more nuanced. The Quadro K1200's average benchmark score across all tests is 8265, while the GeForce 945M averages 8099. That difference is only 166 points, or roughly 2%. The discrepancy between the 9% OpenCL win and the smaller overall average gap suggests that the Quadro K1200's advantage is not uniform across all workloads; its edge is concentrated in the compute-oriented OpenCL test, while other unspecified benchmarks may narrow the gap.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Quadro K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest competitors being the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (avg score 8325, delta -0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (avg score 8167, delta 1.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (avg score 8135, delta 1.6%), and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (avg score 8129, delta 1.7%). These deltas are all within 2.4 percentage points, indicating that the Quadro K1200 is clustered tightly with a group of mid-range mobile and workstation GPUs — none of its nearest rivals are more than 1.7% ahead or 0.7% behind.

The GeForce 945M, meanwhile, holds the 42nd percentile, just one point below the Quadro K1200. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GRID K2 (avg score 8080, delta 0.2%), the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (avg score 8129, delta -0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (avg score 8067, delta 0.4%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (avg score 8135, delta -0.4%). Notably, both cards share the GeForce GTX 950M and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 as near neighbors, underscoring how close these two GPUs are in overall performance despite the Quadro K1200's head-to-head win.

Where Each One Wins

The data structure shows the Quadro K1200 with 1 win and the GeForce 945M with 0 wins in direct head-to-head comparisons. The single win comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro K1200's 8831 score beats the GeForce 945M's 8099 by 9%. This suggests that in compute-heavy applications — tasks that stress raw shading unit throughput and memory bandwidth — the Quadro K1200 holds a demonstrable edge.

The GeForce 945M, despite losing the only direct comparison, is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 8099 places it within 2% of the Quadro K1200's 8265 average. This implies that in tests other than OpenCL, the GeForce 945M is competitive enough to keep the overall average close. The GeForce 945M also benefits from a higher shading unit count (640 vs 512) and higher texture units (40 vs 32), which could favor geometry-heavy or texture-bound workloads, even though those advantages do not materialize into a win in the one test available.

For users prioritizing compute performance, the Quadro K1200 is the clear choice based on the head-to-head data. For those in scenarios where the two GPUs' overall averages are more representative, the difference narrows to a rounding error. The Quadro K1200's 43rd percentile versus the GeForce 945M's 42nd percentile reinforces the view that these are near-peer performers, with the Quadro K1200 holding a slight but consistent edge.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 8831 against the NVIDIA GeForce 945M's 8099, a 9% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K1200 averages 8265 across all tests, while the GeForce 945M averages 8099. That is a difference of approximately 2%, favoring the Quadro K1200.

Q: Are these GPUs closely matched in the overall ranking of all GPUs?

A: Yes. The Quadro K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 945M sits at the 42nd percentile — just one percentile point apart.

Q: What is the nearest rival to the Quadro K1200?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375X is the closest, with an average score of 8325, which is 0.7% lower than the Quadro K1200's 8265.

Q: What is the nearest rival to the GeForce 945M?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 is the closest, with an average score of 8080, which is 0.2% higher than the GeForce 945M's 8099.

Q: Does the GeForce 945M have any wins in head-to-head comparisons?

A: No. The data shows 1 win for the Quadro K1200 and 0 wins for the GeForce 945M in direct benchmark comparisons.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly in memory configuration and board design, while sharing the same underlying chip. The Quadro K1200 ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 945M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on the same 128-bit bus, producing only 28.80 GB/s — less than half the bandwidth. This memory disparity is the single largest technical differentiator and likely explains the Quadro K1200's OpenCL win, as compute workloads often scale with memory bandwidth.

Clock speeds also differ, though less dramatically. The Quadro K1200 runs at a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The GeForce 945M runs at 928 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Quadro K1200's higher clocks, combined with its faster memory, give it a performance edge despite having fewer shading units.

The power envelope differs substantially: the Quadro K1200 is rated at 45 W TDP, while the GeForce 945M is rated at 75 W. The Quadro K1200 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the GeForce 945M is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The bus interfaces also differ: the Quadro K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GeForce 945M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are another point of divergence — the Quadro K1200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the GeForce 945M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same GM107 chip, using the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both have 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither GPU features RT cores or tensor cores.

The core configurations differ in a meaningful way. The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce 945M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce 945M thus has 25% more shading units and 25% more texture units, yet it still loses in the OpenCL benchmark — evidence of the Quadro K1200's memory bandwidth advantage and clock speed. The pixel rates are nearly identical (16.53 GPixel/s for the Quadro K1200 vs 16.32 GPixel/s for the GeForce 945M), but the texture rate favors the GeForce 945M (40.80 GTexel/s vs 33.06 GTexel/s). FP32 compute, however, favors the GeForce 945M: 1,305.6 GFLOPS vs 1,057.8 GFLOPS.

The generations differ: the Quadro K1200 is listed under "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" while the GeForce 945M is under "GeForce 900M." Their predecessors and successors also differ — the Quadro K1200's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell, while the GeForce 945M's predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile. Release dates are separated by roughly nine months: the Quadro K1200 launched in January 2015, the GeForce 945M in October 2015. Both are end-of-life products. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the data, and neither has an FP16 rating. The production status, manufacturing process, and foundry are identical, but the form factor, memory subsystem, and power requirements clearly differentiate their intended use cases — one a workstation card, the other a mobile module.