NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single direct comparison between these two GPUs, and the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 takes the win decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K1200 scores 8,831 points against the GeForce GTX 560 SE's 7,171 points, a 23.1% advantage. That is not a marginal gap; it is a substantial performance lead that positions the Quadro clearly ahead in compute workloads.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro K1200's average benchmark score of 8,265 places it at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M375X at 8,325 (0.7% behind the Quadro), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 at 8,167 (1.2% ahead of the Quadro), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M at 8,135 (1.6% ahead). The Quadro sits in a tight cluster where small deltas separate closely matched cards, but against the GTX 560 SE, the distance is far larger.

The GeForce GTX 560 SE, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 7,171, putting it at the 39th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7,170 (essentially tied at 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 at 7,157 (0.2% behind the GTX 560 SE), and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203 (0.4% ahead). The GTX 560 SE is surrounded by competitors within a 0.7% range, indicating it is a mid-pack performer in its own generation, but it simply cannot match the Quadro K1200's compute output.

The head-to-head delta of 23.1% is the standout number here. In practical terms, that means the Quadro K1200 delivers roughly one-fifth more OpenCL throughput than the GTX 560 SE. For tasks that rely on general-purpose GPU compute, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing, that margin can translate into noticeably shorter completion times. The GTX 560 SE does not win any of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks; the win count is 1 for the Quadro and 0 for the GTX 560 SE.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has an average benchmark score of 8,265, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE has an average benchmark score of 7,171.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the direct OpenCL comparison?

A: The Quadro K1200 scores 8,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 23.1% higher than the GTX 560 SE's 7,171 in the same test.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each card?

A: The Quadro K1200's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375X at 8,325 (0.7% lower), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 at 8,167 (1.2% higher). The GTX 560 SE's nearest rival is the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7,170 (0% difference), with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 at 7,157 (0.2% lower).

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of GPU percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro K1200 is at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 560 SE is at the 39th percentile.

Q: Does the GTX 560 SE have any benchmark where it beats the Quadro K1200?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the GTX 560 SE has zero wins, while the Quadro K1200 has one win.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The performance data is one-sided, but the use cases diverge based on what each card was designed for. The Quadro K1200 wins every recorded benchmark comparison, with a 23.1% lead in OpenCL compute. This makes it the stronger choice for any workload that stresses raw computational throughput, such as professional rendering, CAD simulations, or GPU-accelerated data processing. Its average score of 8,265 versus 7,171 for the GTX 560 SE reinforces this gap across the board.

The Quadro K1200 also holds an advantage in the compute feature set. It supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the GTX 560 SE has no recorded Vulkan support in the database. That means the Quadro is future-proofed for modern compute and graphics APIs, while the GTX 560 SE is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. For users running current or upcoming software that leverages Vulkan, the Quadro is the only viable option between the two.

The GTX 560 SE, despite losing the compute comparison, does have a few characteristics that could favor it in specific scenarios. Its memory bus is wider at 192 bit versus 128 bit, and its memory bandwidth is higher at 91.87 GB/s against the Quadro's 80.19 GB/s. In memory-bound tasks that do not scale with shading units or FP32 throughput, the GTX 560 SE's bandwidth advantage could narrow the gap, though the recorded benchmark data does not include such a test. Its texture rate is also slightly higher at 35.33 GTexel/s versus the Quadro's 33.06 GTexel/s, suggesting it may hold its own in certain texture-heavy rendering paths.

However, the GTX 560 SE's pixel rate is far lower at 8.832 GPixel/s versus the Quadro's 16.53 GPixel/s, a near 2x deficit. The Quadro also has nearly double the FP32 throughput at 1,057.8 GFLOPS against 847.9 GFLOPS. For any workload that depends on shader compute or pixel fill, the Quadro is clearly superior.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge significantly in their core specifications. The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The GTX 560 SE has 288 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Quadro has more shading units by a wide margin, but the GTX 560 SE has more TMUs and ROPs.

Memory configuration also differs. The Quadro K1200 ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 560 SE has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 91.87 GB/s. The Quadro has four times the memory capacity, while the GTX 560 SE has about 14.6% more bandwidth.

Clock behavior is another split. The Quadro has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1,033 MHz, with memory running at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The GTX 560 SE has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 957 MHz (3.8 Gbps effective). This means the Quadro's memory operates at a significantly higher frequency.

Power and physical dimensions differ sharply. The Quadro draws 45 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W. The GTX 560 SE draws 150 W, is dual-slot, requires two 6-pin connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Quadro is also shorter at 160 mm (6.3 inches) versus the GTX 560 SE's 210 mm (8.3 inches). The Quadro has a height of 69 mm (2.7 inches) recorded, while the GTX 560 SE has no height listed.

Display outputs are completely different. The Quadro provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GTX 560 SE provides two DVI and one mini-HDMI 1.3a output. The Quadro is clearly aimed at multi-monitor professional setups, while the GTX 560 SE targets conventional consumer displays.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The Quadro K1200 is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a die size of 148 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The GTX 560 SE, meanwhile, uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF114 chip, also fabricated at TSMC but on a 40 nm process. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a much larger die of 332 mm², with a transistor density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter.

These numbers tell a clear story about process efficiency. The Maxwell chip achieves nearly the same transistor count as the Fermi chip, 1,870 million versus 1,950 million, but on less than half the die area. That density advantage translates directly into the power consumption gap: the Quadro consumes 45 W while the GTX 560 SE consumes 150 W, a 3.3x difference. The Quadro also has a much higher FP32 output at 1,057.8 GFLOPS despite the smaller die, illustrating the architectural efficiency gains of Maxwell over Fermi 2.0.

The generation names reflect the timeline. The Quadro K1200 is listed under the "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" generation, despite using a Maxwell chip, while the GTX 560 SE is in the "GeForce 500" generation. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The GTX 560 SE's predecessor is GeForce 400 and its successor is GeForce 600. The release dates confirm the generational gap: the Quadro launched on 2015-01-27, while the GTX 560 SE launched on 2012-02-19, nearly three years earlier.

API support also differs. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the GTX 560 SE has no Vulkan support recorded. The bus interface is identical at PCIe 2.0 x16 for both cards.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is the superior GPU in compute performance. It wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark by 23.1%, has a higher average benchmark score (8,265 versus 7,171), and ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile (43rd versus 39th). For anyone choosing between these two for a compute-focused workload, the Quadro is the correct pick.

The Quadro also offers advantages that matter in professional environments. It has 4 GB of memory versus 1 GB, a single-slot cooler versus dual-slot, no external power connectors versus two 6-pin, and a 45 W power draw versus 150 W. It supports Vulkan 1.4, which the GTX 560 SE lacks entirely. Its four mini-DisplayPort outputs support multi-monitor professional setups directly, while the GTX 560 SE is limited to DVI and mini-HDMI.

The GTX 560 SE does have a few redeeming traits. Its memory bandwidth is higher at 91.87 GB/s, and its texture rate is slightly higher at 35.33 GTexel/s. It also has more TMUs (48 versus 32) and more ROPs (24 versus 16). In texture-heavy or memory-bandwidth-bound scenarios, these specifications could keep it competitive, but the recorded benchmarks show no such win.

The architecture comparison underscores the generational leap. The Quadro's 28 nm Maxwell design delivers more performance with far fewer watts and a much smaller die, while the GTX 560 SE's 40 nm Fermi 2.0 design requires 3.3x the power and nearly 2.25x the die area to achieve less compute throughput. The transistor density difference, 12.6M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm², is the root cause.

Users who need a low-power, multi-display professional card with strong compute and modern API support should choose the Quadro K1200. Users who prioritize raw memory bandwidth or texture throughput, and who can accommodate a 150 W dual-slot card with two 6-pin connectors, might consider the GTX 560 SE, but the benchmark record provides no evidence that it outperforms the Quadro in any measured workload. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro K1200 is the better card by every recorded metric.