NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between these two NVIDIA cards: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 records a score of 9294, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8831. This gives the GTX 465 a 5.2% advantage in compute performance. That is a moderate but consistent lead, placing the GTX 465 slightly ahead in raw OpenCL throughput.

Context from the nearest rivals helps frame this result. The GTX 465 sits at the 46th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 9294. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M, scores 9302, which is just 0.1% higher. The AMD Radeon R7 M380 scores 9313, a 0.2% edge. The GeForce GTX 960 trails by 0.2% at 9273, and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 is 0.8% behind at 9221. The GTX 465 is essentially locked into a tight cluster where a few points separate it from its peers.

The Quadro K1200, by contrast, sits at the 43rd percentile with an average benchmark score of 8265. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, scores 8325, which is 0.7% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 scores 8167, putting the Quadro 1.2% ahead. The GeForce GTX 950M scores 8135, a 1.6% gap, and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8129, a 1.7% gap. So the Quadro K1200 leads its immediate rivals by a small but consistent margin, unlike the GTX 465 which trades places with its neighbors.

The head-to-head delta of 5.2% is larger than any of the differences seen in the rival clusters for either card. This suggests the GTX 465 holds a clear, though not overwhelming, edge in the one measured workload. The Quadro K1200 also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 7698, but the GTX 465 has no corresponding Vulkan result in the database, so no comparison can be made there.

The data also shows a divergence in the average scores. The GTX 465 has only one benchmark entry, so its average equals its OpenCL score of 9294. The Quadro K1200 has two entries, and its average of 8265 is pulled down by the lower Vulkan score of 7698. This means if the head-to-head were based on average scores across all tests, the GTX 465 would lead by a wider margin: 9294 versus 8265, a difference of roughly 12.4%. But the official head-to-head uses only the shared OpenCL test, where the gap is the more modest 5.2%.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and use different manufacturing processes. The GTX 465 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip, and is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro K1200 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is a major factor: 40 nm versus 28 nm, which allows the newer card to pack more transistors per square millimeter.

The transistor counts tell a story of design trade-offs. The Fermi chip has 3,100 million transistors on a die size of 529 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The Maxwell chip has 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller die of 148 mm², yielding a density of 12.6 million per mm². That is a 6.7 million per mm² advantage in density for the Maxwell part, which is more than double the density of the Fermi chip.

Clock behavior differs as well. The GTX 465 lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 802 MHz, which translates to 3.2 Gbps effective. The Quadro K1200 has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz, with a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The lack of a boost clock on the Fermi part suggests a fixed clock, whereas the Maxwell part can dynamically raise its frequency.

Memory configurations are distinct. The GTX 465 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 102.7 GB/s. The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The GTX 465 has a 22.51 GB/s bandwidth advantage, but the Quadro has four times the capacity.

Compute resources are organized differently. The GTX 465 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 465 has more TMUs and ROPs, while the Quadro has more shading units. The pixel rate for the GTX 465 is 13.38 GPixel/s, while the Quadro reaches 16.53 GPixel/s. The texture rate for the GTX 465 is 26.75 GTexel/s, and the Quadro is 33.06 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 855.4 GFLOPS for the GTX 465 and 1,057.8 GFLOPS for the Quadro.

The power profile is dramatically different. The GTX 465 has a TDP of 200 W, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45 W, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. That is a 155 W difference in TDP.

Physical and interface differences are notable. The GTX 465 is dual-slot, 241 mm long (9.5 inches), and uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The Quadro K1200 is single-slot, 160 mm long (6.3 inches), with a height of 69 mm (2.7 inches). Both use PCIe 2.0 x16. The display outputs are completely different: the GTX 465 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the Quadro has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

The API support is similar for DirectX and OpenGL: both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Quadro K1200 lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the GTX 465 lists no Vulkan support.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9294, compared to the Quadro K1200's 8831, a 5.2% difference.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The GTX 465 has 1024 MB of GDDR5, while the Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5, four times the capacity.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The GTX 465 has a TDP of 200 W, the Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45 W. The Quadro consumes 155 W less.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro K1200, on a 28 nm process, has a transistor density of 12.6M per mm², while the GTX 465 on 40 nm has 5.9M per mm².

Q: What API features are different?

A: The Quadro K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 465 lists no Vulkan version. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Architecture: Fermi (GTX 465) versus Maxwell (Quadro K1200)
• Process node: 40 nm versus 28 nm
• Transistor count: 3,100 million versus 1,870 million
• Die size: 529 mm² versus 148 mm²
• Transistor density: 5.9M/mm² versus 12.6M/mm²
• Base clock: Not listed versus 954 MHz
• Boost clock: Not listed versus 1033 MHz
• Memory clock: 802 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 1024 MB versus 4 GB
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Bandwidth: 102.7 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s
• Shading units: 352 versus 512
• TMUs: 44 versus 32
• ROPs: 32 versus 16
• Pixel rate: 13.38 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 26.75 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s
• FP32: 855.4 GFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS
• TDP: 200 W versus 45 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus Single-slot
• Power connectors: 2x 6-pin versus None
• Suggested PSU: 550 W versus 200 W
• Display outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2
• Vulkan: Not listed versus 1.4
• Dimensions: 241 mm length versus 160 mm length, 69 mm height
• Release date: 2010-05-30 versus 2015-01-27
• Predecessor: GeForce 200 versus Quadro Fermi
• Successor: GeForce 500 versus Quadro Maxwell
• Launch MSRP: 279 USD versus not listed

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 465 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 5.2%. It also has a higher memory bandwidth (102.7 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s), more TMUs (44 versus 32), more ROPs (32 versus 16), and a wider memory bus (256 bit versus 128 bit). This makes it the better choice for workloads that are sensitive to memory throughput and rasterization throughput, even with its older architecture.

The Quadro K1200 wins in several other dimensions. It has a higher FP32 throughput (1,057.8 GFLOPS versus 855.4 GFLOPS), more shading units (512 versus 352), higher pixel fill rate (16.53 GPixel/s versus 13.38 GPixel/s), and higher texture fill rate (33.06 GTexel/s versus 26.75 GTexel/s). It also has 4 GB of memory versus 1 GB, which is a decisive advantage for applications with large memory footprints. Its power draw is far lower: 45 W against 200 W, allowing it to run in a single-slot, passively cooled or low-power configuration with no external power connectors. The Quadro also has 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs, which is better suited for multi-monitor professional setups.

The context of the rival clusters reinforces a clear split. The GTX 465 sits among mid-range consumer and mobile parts (GTX 850M, R7 M380, GTX 960, Vega 8) and wins the head-to-head. The Quadro K1200 sits among similar parts (R9 M375X, GTX 980, GTX 950M, R9 M360) but loses the direct comparison. The GTX 465 is the stronger raw performer in the measured test, but the Quadro is the more refined, efficient, and capable card for a workstation environment. The data shows a tradeoff: one generation older but with more memory bandwidth and ROPs, versus a newer generation with higher compute throughput and 4x the memory capacity at a fraction of the power. The choice depends on whether the priority is the single measured score, which favors the GTX, or the combination of features and efficiency, which favors the Quadro.