NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 posts an average benchmark score of 8265, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost averages 8067. The Quadro leads by roughly 2.5% in this aggregate metric.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 9302, which is 5.1% higher than the Quadro K1200's 8831. This is a direct head-to-head result where the GeForce wins.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in shared benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 10041 versus the Quadro K1200's 7698, a delta of 23.3% in favor of the GeForce. This is the most decisive margin in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost has 144.2 GB/s of bandwidth on a 192-bit bus, while the Quadro K1200 provides 80.19 GB/s on a 128-bit bus. The GeForce offers nearly 80% more bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both the Quadro K1200 and the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost are listed as end-of-life products. The Quadro launched on 2015-01-27, while the GeForce launched on 2013-03-25.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, though they differ in Vulkan support: the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GeForce supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K1200 is built on the GM107 chip using NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost uses the GK106 chip with the older Kepler architecture, also on TSMC's 28 nm node. Despite the same process, transistor counts differ substantially: the Quadro packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the GeForce integrates 2,540 million transistors on a larger 221 mm² die. This yields a higher transistor density for the Maxwell part at 12.6M / mm² versus 11.5M / mm² for Kepler.

Core configuration tells a nuanced story. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The Quadro K1200 counters with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce therefore holds a 1.5x lead in shader count, a 2x lead in TMUs, and a 1.5x lead in ROPs. However, the Maxwell architecture in the Quadro achieves higher per-core efficiency, as evidenced by its FP32 output of 1,057.8 GFLOPS from fewer cores, while the Kepler part reaches 1.585 TFLOPS.

Clock speeds are closely matched. The Quadro runs at a 954 MHz base clock with a 1033 MHz boost, while the GeForce starts at 980 MHz base and boosts to 1032 MHz. The memory clocks differ more meaningfully: the Quadro's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), whereas the GeForce's memory operates at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The Quadro K1200 is a single-slot card with a 45 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring only a 200 W suggested PSU. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is a dual-slot card with a 134 W TDP, one 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The GeForce also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro relies on PCIe 2.0 x16.

Display outputs also reflect their intended roles. The Quadro provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, suited for multi-monitor professional setups. The GeForce offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, a more consumer-oriented selection. The Quadro measures 160 mm in length, while the GeForce is substantially longer at 241 mm.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost wins both shared tests, giving it a 2-0 victory in the head-to-head comparison. The Quadro K1200 records zero wins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GeForce scores 9302 against the Quadro's 8831. This represents a 5.1% advantage for the Kepler card. The margin is modest but consistent, suggesting the GeForce's higher shader count and memory bandwidth translate into real compute throughput in OpenCL workloads. The Quadro's Maxwell architecture narrows the gap but cannot overcome the GeForce's raw resource advantages.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is far more lopsided. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 10041, while the Quadro K1200 manages only 7698. The 23.3% delta is the single largest performance difference between the two cards in any metric. This substantial gap likely stems from the GeForce's superior texture rate (66.05 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (16.51 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s, effectively tied) combined with its larger memory bus and bandwidth.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective peer groups adds perspective. The Quadro K1200's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, which scores 8325, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, which scores 8167. The Quadro sits between these two, with delta percentages of -0.7% and +1.2% respectively. Its 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs places it in the lower-middle tier. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GRID K2 at 8080 and its own non-Boost sibling, the GTX 650 Ti, at 8053. The Boost variant leads these by margins of -0.2% and +0.2%, respectively, and sits at the 42nd percentile overall.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the closeness of these two products. The Quadro K1200 averages 8265 across all recorded benchmarks, while the GeForce averages 8067. This 2.5% aggregate difference is small enough that real-world application selection could easily reverse the ranking. The GeForce's Vulkan advantage is significant, but the Quadro's higher average suggests better consistency across a broader range of tests.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every hardware specification except for process node, foundry, and API support for DirectX and OpenGL.

• Chip and Architecture: Quadro K1200 uses GM107 (Maxwell); GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost uses GK106 (Kepler).
• Generation: Quadro is from the "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" generation; GeForce is from the "GeForce 600" generation.
• Transistors: 1,870 million (Quadro) versus 2,540 million (GeForce).
• Die Size: 148 mm² (Quadro) versus 221 mm² (GeForce).
• Transistor Density: 12.6M / mm² (Quadro) versus 11.5M / mm² (GeForce).
• Base Clock: 954 MHz (Quadro) versus 980 MHz (GeForce).
• Boost Clock: 1033 MHz (Quadro) versus 1032 MHz (GeForce).
• Memory Clock: 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective (Quadro) versus 1502 MHz / 6 Gbps effective (GeForce).
• Memory Size: 4 GB (Quadro) versus 2 GB (GeForce).
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit (Quadro) versus 192 bit (GeForce).
• Memory Bandwidth: 80.19 GB/s (Quadro) versus 144.2 GB/s (GeForce).
• Shading Units: 512 (Quadro) versus 768 (GeForce).
• TMUs: 32 (Quadro) versus 64 (GeForce).
• ROPs: 16 (Quadro) versus 24 (GeForce).
• Pixel Rate: 16.53 GPixel/s (Quadro) versus 16.51 GPixel/s (GeForce).
• Texture Rate: 33.06 GTexel/s (Quadro) versus 66.05 GTexel/s (GeForce).
• FP32: 1,057.8 GFLOPS (Quadro) versus 1.585 TFLOPS (GeForce).
• TDP: 45 W (Quadro) versus 134 W (GeForce).
• Slot Width: Single-slot (Quadro) versus Dual-slot (GeForce).
• Power Connectors: None (Quadro) versus 1x 6-pin (GeForce).
• Suggested PSU: 200 W (Quadro) versus 300 W (GeForce).
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 (Quadro) versus PCIe 3.0 x16 (GeForce).
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 (Quadro) versus 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 (GeForce).
• Vulkan Version: 1.4 (Quadro) versus 1.2.175 (GeForce).
• Length: 160 mm / 6.3 inches (Quadro) versus 241 mm / 9.5 inches (GeForce).
• Release Date: 2015-01-27 (Quadro) versus 2013-03-25 (GeForce).
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi (Quadro) versus GeForce 500 (GeForce).
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell (Quadro) versus GeForce 700 (GeForce).
• Launch MSRP: The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost launched at 169 USD. The Quadro K1200 has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points toward a clear performance winner: the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost outperforms the Quadro K1200 in both shared benchmarks. Its Vulkan lead of 23.3% is decisive, and the OpenCL advantage of 5.1% is consistent with its superior core counts and memory bandwidth. Users prioritizing raw compute performance in these specific workloads should choose the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost.

However, the Quadro K1200 offers its own set of advantages that matter in specific contexts. Its 4 GB of memory doubles the GeForce's 2 GB capacity, which can be critical for memory-intensive professional workloads. Its 45 W TDP is less than one-third of the GeForce's 134 W, enabling single-slot designs with no external power connectors and a lower 200 W suggested PSU. The Quadro also provides four mini-DisplayPort outputs for multi-display professional setups, and its newer release date brings Vulkan 1.4 support versus the GeForce's 1.2.175.

The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The Quadro K1200's 8265 average edges out the GeForce's 8067, indicating that the Quadro performs better across a broader benchmark suite even though it loses the two specific head-to-head tests. This suggests the GeForce's wins are workload-specific rather than universal.

For buyers whose workloads align with the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is the data-backed choice. For those needing higher memory capacity, far lower power consumption, compact single-slot form factor, or multiple mini-DisplayPort outputs, the Quadro K1200 is the appropriate pick despite its benchmark deficits. The 43rd versus 42nd percentile rankings show both cards sit in the same performance tier, so the decision hinges on workload characteristics and physical requirements rather than overall capability.