NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 and NVIDIA Quadro K1200 represent two distinct philosophies from the same manufacturer: one aimed at consumer gaming, the other at professional workstations. Despite sharing a 28 nm TSMC process node, the data reveals stark differences in compute capacity, memory configuration, and interface capabilities. The benchmark results show a clear performance hierarchy, but the Quadro's specialized feature set and lower power envelope tell a more nuanced story for professional buyers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is decisively one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 660 scores 11,347 against the Quadro K1200's 8,831, a 28.5% advantage. The Vulkan gap is even wider: the GTX 660 hits 11,415 while the Quadro manages only 7,698, a 48.3% margin. These are not marginal differences; the GTX 660 delivers nearly half again the performance in Vulkan workloads.

The GTX 660's average benchmark score of 9,022 places it at the 45th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K1200's 8,265 average sits at the 43rd percentile. Interestingly, the GTX 660's nearest rival is the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition, with an average score of 9,037 and a delta of just -0.2%. The Quadro K1200, by contrast, shadows the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325, -0.7%) and sits just 1.2% behind the GeForce GTX 980.

The OpenCL result of 11,347 for the GTX 660 is particularly notable because it exceeds its own average benchmark score by over 25%, suggesting the card is compute-capable beyond its aggregate profile. The Quadro's 8,831 OpenCL score is similarly above its 8,265 average, but the relative gap between the two cards persists across both APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 660 wins decisively, scoring 11,415 versus 7,698 for the Quadro K1200, a 48.3% advantage. This is the largest performance delta between the two cards in any benchmark.

Q: How does the GTX 660 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 660's 9,022 average score is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037) and 0.4% of the GeForce GTX 560 (9,058). It leads the AMD Radeon 550X by 1.2% and the Radeon Pro WX 5100 by 1.8%.

Q: Is the Quadro K1200 competitive with any GTX series cards?

A: The Quadro K1200's 8,265 average places it 1.2% behind the GeForce GTX 980 (8,167) and 1.6% ahead of the GeForce GTX 950M (8,135). It trails the GTX 660 by roughly 9% on average.

Q: What memory advantages does the Quadro K1200 offer?

A: The Quadro K1200 ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the GTX 660's 2 GB, but on a narrower 128-bit bus. This yields 80.19 GB/s bandwidth versus 144.2 GB/s for the GTX 660.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 660 lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro K1200 lists Vulkan 1.4, indicating newer Vulkan support on the professional card.

Q: How do the cards' power requirements differ?

A: The GTX 660 has a 140 W TDP and requires a 300 W power supply with a 6-pin connector. The Quadro K1200 draws only 45 W, needs no power connectors, and works with a 200 W supply.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The GTX 660 uses the GK106 chip built on the Kepler architecture, while the Quadro K1200 employs the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: the GTX 660 packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the Quadro K1200 contains 1,870 million on a smaller 148 mm² die. This yields transistor densities of 11.5M per mm² for the GTX 660 versus 12.6M per mm² for the Quadro, showing Maxwell's improved density.

The compute resources tell a similar story of divergence. The GTX 660 fields 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The Quadro K1200 is dramatically cut down with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates follow accordingly: the GTX 660 achieves 20.64 GPixel/s and 82.56 GTexel/s, while the Quadro manages 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput gap is substantial — 1.981 TFLOPS for the GTX 660 versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS for the Quadro.

Clock behavior is more subtle. The GTX 660 runs at a base of 980 MHz with a 1032 MHz boost; the Quadro K1200 starts at 954 MHz and boosts to 1033 MHz. Despite nearly identical boost clocks, the GTX 660's larger shader array and wider memory bus create the performance separation. The GTX 660's memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) across a 192-bit bus, while the Quadro's 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) memory on a 128-bit bus produces less than 60% of the bandwidth.

The cards also differ in physical scale and connectivity. The GTX 660 is a dual-slot card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) with a 6-pin power connector. The Quadro K1200 is a single-slot card at 160 mm (6.3 inches) with no power connectors, making it suitable for compact or densely populated systems.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal clear differentiation in nearly every category. Memory configuration is a key split: the GTX 660 offers 2 GB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 144.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K1200 provides 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s. The Quadro doubles capacity but sacrifices more than 44% of bandwidth.

Compute specifications are comprehensively in the GTX 660's favor. Its 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 24 ROPs dwarf the Quadro's 512, 32, and 16 respectively. The GTX 660's 1.981 TFLOPS FP32 rating is nearly double the Quadro's 1,057.8 GFLOPS. Pixel rate of 20.64 GPixel/s and texture rate of 82.56 GTexel/s far exceed the Quadro's 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specs reverse the trend. The GTX 660 demands 140 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU and a 6-pin connector; the Quadro K1200 sips 45 W, works with a 200 W supply, and needs no external power. The GTX 660 spans 241 mm and is dual-slot, while the Quadro is 160 mm and single-slot. The GTX 660 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, whereas the Quadro K1200 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

Display outputs differ completely: the GTX 660 provides 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2; the Quadro K1200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 660 launched on 2012-09-05 with a launch MSRP of 229 USD; the Quadro K1200 arrived later on 2015-01-27. The GTX 660's generation is GeForce 600, while the Quadro K1200 is listed under the "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" generation despite its Maxwell chip. The GTX 660's production status is end-of-life, as is the Quadro's.

The Verdict

The data makes a straightforward case for raw performance: the GTX 660 wins both head-to-head benchmarks and holds a 9% average score advantage. For any workload measured by OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the GTX 660 is the superior choice, delivering 28.5% and 48.3% more performance respectively. Its nearest rival being the TITAN V CEO Edition, within 0.2%, indicates the card outperforms its age and class in aggregate benchmarks.

However, the Quadro K1200's case rests on factors beyond raw throughput. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double the GTX 660's, which could matter for large datasets that fit within the slower bandwidth. The 45 W TDP with no power connectors enables deployment in systems where the GTX 660's 140 W requirement and dual-slot footprint are prohibitive. The single-slot 160 mm form factor and four mini-DisplayPort outputs suggest multi-display professional setups are a target use case.

The Vulkan API support difference is noteworthy: the Quadro K1200 lists Vulkan 1.4 against the GTX 660's 1.2.175, indicating newer driver-level API compatibility despite lower performance. For users prioritizing modern API features over raw frame rates, this could tip the balance.

The GTX 660's PCIe 3.0 interface provides twice the bandwidth of the Quadro's PCIe 2.0, but the Quadro's lower bandwidth requirement makes this less impactful. The GTX 660's launch MSRP of 229 USD reflects its consumer positioning, though neither card's current pricing is documented here.

Choose the GTX 660 for maximum compute performance, wider memory bus, and higher throughput in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. Choose the Quadro K1200 for lower power consumption, double the memory capacity, compact single-slot design, and newer Vulkan support. The data shows a clear performance winner, but the professional card's efficiency and capacity advantages address different priorities entirely.