NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 occupy very different positions in the GPU landscape, and the recorded benchmark data makes that split clear. The Quadro K1200 is a professional workstation card from the Maxwell era, while the GTX 1650 is a consumer Turing-based model. Based on the two shared benchmark tests, the GeForce GTX 1650 wins decisively in raw compute throughput, but the Quadro K1200 still holds relevance in specific professional contexts due to its driver and display capabilities. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the choice between them depends on workload priorities, not just raw scores.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 1650 wins every head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 29,629 against the Quadro K1200's 8,831, a delta of 70.2% in favor of the GTX 1650. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is even larger: the GTX 1650 scores 33,042 versus 7,698 for the Quadro K1200, a 76.7% advantage. These are not close results. The GTX 1650 is faster by a wide margin in both general-purpose compute (OpenCL) and graphics API workloads (Vulkan).

The Quadro K1200 does not win any of the recorded head-to-head tests. However, its strengths lie outside raw benchmark scores. The database lists it as a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which is a configuration suited for multi-display professional environments. It also has a lower TDP of 45 W compared to the GTX 1650's 75 W, and it requires no power connectors in both cases, but the K1200's lower power draw makes it easier to slot into compact or legacy systems. The K1200's PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is older, but its driver support for professional applications, suggested by its Quadro branding, is a qualitative advantage not captured by these two consumer-oriented benchmarks.

The GTX 1650 wins on compute, memory bandwidth, and API support. Its 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is 60% higher than the K1200's 80.19 GB/s. Its DirectX support reaches 12 (12_1) versus the K1200's 12 (11_0), which matters for modern games and newer graphical features. The GTX 1650 also has a much higher pixel rate (53.28 GPixel/s vs 16.53 GPixel/s) and texture rate (93.24 GTexel/s vs 33.06 GTexel/s). For gaming, content creation, or any workload that leverages modern graphics APIs, the GTX 1650 is the clear choice.

The Verdict

For anyone building a system for gaming or general-purpose compute, the GeForce GTX 1650 is the obvious pick. Its benchmark scores are roughly 3.4x higher in OpenCL and 4.3x higher in Vulkan than the Quadro K1200. The GTX 1650 also offers a more modern feature set: Turing architecture, 12 nm process, PCIe 3.0, and DirectX 12_1 support. The database shows it sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the K1200 is at the 43rd percentile, but those percentiles are based on different benchmark suites and do not reflect the head-to-head disparity.

The Quadro K1200 is for a narrower use case. If you need a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort outputs for a multi-monitor professional setup, and your software does not rely on Vulkan or modern DirectX features, the K1200 remains functional. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory matches the GTX 1650's capacity, and its 80.19 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for older workstation workloads. The K1200's 45 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it easy to install in almost any system. However, the benchmark data is unambiguous: the GTX 1650 outperforms it in every measured test. Pick the K1200 only if your specific professional software requires Quadro drivers or the multi-display output layout, and even then, be prepared for significantly lower compute performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks tell a consistent story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 against the K1200's 8,831. The delta of 70.2% means the GTX 1650 is roughly 3.35 times faster. This test exercises general compute workloads, including floating-point math, which aligns with the GTX 1650's FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS versus the K1200's 1,057.8 GFLOPS. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units compared to 512 on the K1200, and its boost clock of 1665 MHz is much higher than the K1200's 1033 MHz. These architectural advantages show up directly in the OpenCL score.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin grows. The GTX 1650 scores 33,042 versus 7,698 for the K1200, a delta of 76.7%. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API, and the GTX 1650's newer Turing architecture with better geometry processing and higher fill rates makes a larger difference here. The GTX 1650's pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are more than triple the K1200's respective rates. The K1200's Vulkan score of 7,698 indicates it handles the API, but its Maxwell-era hardware is clearly not optimized for it.

The GTX 1650 also shows a broader benchmark profile in the database. It has scores for PassMark tests across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus G2D, G3D, and compute. Its PassMark G3D score is 7,880, and its PassMark GPU compute score is 3,048. The K1200 only has the two Geekbench entries, so no direct comparison is possible on those tests, but the existing data is sufficient to establish the GTX 1650's dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K1200 has an average benchmark score of 8,265, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has an average of 7,472. However, this average is based on different test sets. In the shared Geekbench tests, the GTX 1650 is significantly faster.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629, which is 70.2% higher than the K1200's 8,831. This translates to about 3.35 times the performance.

Q: Does the Quadro K1200 have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: No. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus. The GTX 1650 has higher bandwidth at 128.1 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s for the K1200.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The K1200 was released in January 2015, and the GTX 1650 in April 2019.

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX features?

A: The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The 12_1 feature level includes additional shading and rendering capabilities.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The K1200 is 160 mm long and 69 mm high, and it is single-slot. The GTX 1650 is 229 mm long, 111 mm high, and 35 mm wide, and it is dual-slot. The GTX 1650 is substantially larger.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations. The Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly double: 23.5M per mm² for the GTX 1650 versus 12.6M per mm² for the K1200.

The compute resources differ sharply. The K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both. The GTX 1650's FP32 throughput is 2.984 TFLOPS, and it also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The K1200 only lists FP32 at 1,057.8 GFLOPS, with no FP16 support recorded.

Memory architecture is similar in capacity and bus width, but the GTX 1650 runs at a higher effective speed. Both use GDDR5, but the K1200's memory runs at 5 Gbps effective, yielding 80.19 GB/s, while the GTX 1650 runs at 8 Gbps effective, yielding 128.1 GB/s. The GTX 1650's higher bandwidth is a direct result of faster memory clocks, not a wider bus.

Feature support also differs. The K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1650's higher DirectX feature level is a significant advantage for modern gaming. Both support the same OpenGL and Vulkan versions, but the underlying hardware implementation is much more capable on the GTX 1650.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences are as follows. The K1200 has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz, while the GTX 1650 has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The GTX 1650's clocks are roughly 55% higher at base and 61% higher at boost. The K1200 has a TDP of 45 W, while the GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W. Both cards require no power connectors, but the suggested PSU is 200 W for the K1200 and 250 W for the GTX 1650.

The bus interface differs: the K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 1650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The display outputs are also different. The K1200 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, supporting multi-monitor professional setups. The GTX 1650 has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a, which is a more conventional consumer configuration.

Physical dimensions vary significantly. The K1200 is 160 mm long and 69 mm high, fitting a single-slot form factor. The GTX 1650 is 229 mm long, 111 mm high, and 35 mm wide, requiring a dual-slot layout. The K1200 is a compact card, while the GTX 1650 is a more standard consumer size. Both are end-of-life products, but their release dates are far apart: the K1200 launched in January 2015, and the GTX 1650 in April 2019. The GTX 1650 has a recorded launch MSRP of 149 USD, though that figure is not part of the comparative analysis here.