NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall OpenCL benchmark performance?

A: The GeForce GTX 560 scores 9,058 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K1200 scores 8,831 points. This gives the GTX 560 a 2.6% lead in that specific test.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory capacity?

A: The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, whereas the GeForce GTX 560 has only 1,024 MB (1 GB). The K1200 offers four times the memory capacity.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The GTX 560 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 450 W suggested PSU with 2x 6-pin power connectors. The Quadro K1200 has a TDP of just 45 W, requires a 200 W suggested PSU, and needs no power connectors at all.

Q: Which GPU is newer in terms of release date?

A: The GeForce GTX 560 was released on 2011-05-16, while the Quadro K1200 was released on 2015-01-27. The K1200 is roughly four years newer.

Q: How does the GTX 560 compare to its nearest rivals in its performance percentile?

A: The GTX 560 sits at the 45th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 9,058. It is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037) and 0.4% ahead of the GeForce GTX 660 (9,022), but 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon 890M (9,210).

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the Quadro K1200, and how does it fare against its closest competitors?

A: The K1200 is at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 8,265 across its two benchmark tests. In OpenCL it scores 8,831, which is 1.2% ahead of the GeForce GTX 980 (8,167) and 1.6% ahead of the GeForce GTX 950M (8,135), but 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325).

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different NVIDIA architectures, which explains much of their behavioral divergence. The GeForce GTX 560 is built on the GF114 chip using Fermi 2.0 architecture, a 40 nm process from TSMC. Its die is large at 332 mm² and packs 1,950 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. This is a relatively older, power-hungry design.

The Quadro K1200, by contrast, uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. Its die is much smaller at 148 mm², yet it holds 1,870 million transistors. This results in a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter, more than double that of the GTX 560. The smaller die and denser packing indicate a more modern manufacturing approach that enables lower power draw.

In terms of compute resources, the GTX 560 has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K1200 has more shading units at 512, but fewer TMUs (32) and half the ROPs (16). This suggests a different balance: the K1200 emphasizes shader throughput while the GTX 560 devotes more silicon to texture and pixel processing.

Clock behavior also differs. The GTX 560 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The K1200 has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1,033 MHz, with memory at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The K1200's boost capability is a feature absent from the older card's specification sheet.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The GTX 560 uses a 256-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The K1200 uses a 128-bit bus, halving the bus width, but compensates with higher memory clock speed and larger capacity, achieving 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The K1200's 4 GB capacity vastly exceeds the GTX 560's 1,024 MB.

Vulkan support is another differentiator: the GTX 560 lists no Vulkan API support, while the K1200 explicitly supports Vulkan 1.4. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The GeForce GTX 560 scores 9,058, while the Quadro K1200 scores 8,831. The GTX 560 wins this test by a margin of 2.6%. This is a narrow victory, but it is consistent across the average benchmark scores.

Looking deeper, the GTX 560's average benchmark score is 9,058 (single test), while the K1200's average is 8,265 (averaging its OpenCL score of 8,831 and Vulkan score of 7,698). The GTX 560's OpenCL result is 2.6% higher than the K1200's OpenCL result. However, the K1200 also has a Vulkan score of 7,698, which is lower than its OpenCL score by about 12.8%, indicating that its performance varies by API.

In the context of their respective nearest rivals, the GTX 560's 9,058 OpenCL score places it 0.2% above the TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037) and 0.4% above the GTX 660 (9,022). The K1200's 8,831 OpenCL score places it 1.2% above the GTX 980 (8,167) and 1.6% above the GTX 950M (8,135). Both cards hold their own against more famous names, but the GTX 560 edges out the K1200 in the direct comparison.

The data shows that the GTX 560 is the winner of the sole head-to-head test, with 1 win and 0 losses. This is a slim margin, but it is the only recorded metric that pits them directly against each other.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, based on the database records:

• Chip: GTX 560 uses GF114; K1200 uses GM107
• Architecture: Fermi 2.0 vs. Maxwell
• Generation: GeForce 500 vs. Quadro Kepler (Kx200)
• Process Node: 40 nm vs. 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,950 million vs. 1,870 million
• Die Size: 332 mm² vs. 148 mm²
• Transistor Density: 5.9M / mm² vs. 12.6M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) vs. 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 1,024 MB vs. 4 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs. 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 128.0 GB/s vs. 80.19 GB/s
• Shading Units: 336 vs. 512
• TMUs: 56 vs. 32
• ROPs: 32 vs. 16
• Pixel Rate: 11.34 GPixel/s vs. 16.53 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 45.36 GTexel/s vs. 33.06 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,088.6 GFLOPS vs. 1,057.8 GFLOPS
• TDP: 150 W vs. 45 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs. Single-slot
• Power Connectors: 2x 6-pin vs. None
• Suggested PSU: 450 W vs. 200 W
• Display Outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a vs. 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2
• Vulkan Support: None listed vs. 1.4
• Dimensions: 210 mm (8.3 inches) length vs. 160 mm (6.3 inches) length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) height
• Release Date: 2011-05-16 vs. 2015-01-27
• Predecessor: GeForce 400 vs. Quadro Fermi
• Successor: GeForce 600 vs. Quadro Maxwell
• Launch MSRP: 199 USD vs. None listed

The K1200 also has a base clock (954 MHz) and boost clock (1,033 MHz), while the GTX 560 lists neither.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 560 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 1,088.6 GFLOPS, which is 2.9% higher than the K1200's 1,057.8 GFLOPS. It also achieves a higher texture rate of 45.36 GTexel/s compared to 33.06 GTexel/s, a 37.2% advantage. The GTX 560's memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s is 59.6% higher than the K1200's 80.19 GB/s. These figures explain its OpenCL victory. It also wins on transistor count (1,950 million vs. 1,870 million) and has a wider memory bus (256-bit vs. 128-bit).

The Quadro K1200 wins in efficiency and capacity. Its TDP of 45 W is exactly one-third of the GTX 560's 150 W. It requires no power connectors and a 200 W PSU versus the GTX 560's 2x 6-pin and 450 W PSU. The K1200 also has four times the memory capacity (4 GB vs. 1,024 MB), which is critical for large datasets. It has more shading units (512 vs. 336) and a higher pixel rate (16.53 GPixel/s vs. 11.34 GPixel/s, a 45.8% advantage). Its smaller die (148 mm² vs. 332 mm²) and higher transistor density (12.6M / mm² vs. 5.9M / mm²) indicate a more space-efficient design. The K1200 is also single-slot, shorter (160 mm vs. 210 mm), and supports Vulkan 1.4, which the GTX 560 lacks.

The Verdict

For raw performance in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, the GeForce GTX 560 is the pick. It scores 2.6% higher than the K1200, and its superior texture rate, memory bandwidth, and FP32 throughput align with that result. The GTX 560 also has a higher average benchmark score (9,058 vs. 8,265) and sits at a higher percentile rank (45th vs. 43rd). Gamers or users prioritizing compute-heavy OpenCL workloads would favor this card, especially given its 199 USD launch MSRP.

For efficiency, capacity, and modern features, the Quadro K1200 is the clear choice. Its 45 W TDP is a fraction of the GTX 560's 150 W, and its 4 GB memory capacity is quadruple that of the older card. The K1200's Vulkan 1.4 support, smaller physical footprint (single-slot, 160 mm length), and passive power requirements make it suitable for compact or low-power systems. Its higher shading unit count and pixel rate suggest it handles shader-bound tasks and display output well, with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus the GTX 560's 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI.

The data indicates no clear overall winner; the choice depends on workload. The GTX 560 wins the only direct benchmark, but the K1200 wins on efficiency, memory capacity, and API support. Users needing maximum OpenCL throughput should look to the GTX 560, while those needing low power draw, large memory buffers, or Vulkan compatibility should choose the K1200.