NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX and the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 represent two distinct approaches to mobile and workstation graphics from the same manufacturer, separated by roughly two and a half years of architectural evolution. The GTX 675MX is a high-end consumer notebook part built on the larger GK104 Kepler chip, while the K1200 is a professional workstation card based on the smaller GM107 Maxwell chip. Their benchmark scores place them within 2% of each other in aggregate, yet their underlying designs and application strengths diverge sharply. This analysis breaks down the data to clarify where each GPU holds an advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 675MX wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, and it does so decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 675MX scores 10,723 points against the K1200’s 8,831, a delta of 21.4%. This is a substantial margin, indicating that for raw compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, the older Kepler part is significantly faster. The GTX 675MX also holds a higher average benchmark score of 8,427 compared to the K1200’s 8,265, and it benefits from a larger memory bus (256-bit vs 128-bit) and higher memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), which directly contributes to its compute lead.

The Quadro K1200, despite losing the head-to-head, carves out its wins in other areas. It wins on overall efficiency and form factor, but from a pure benchmark perspective, it does not have a single winning entry in the head-to-head comparison. However, its Geekbench Vulkan score of 7,698 is a data point the GTX 675MX cannot match, as the GTX 675MX has no Vulkan benchmark result listed. This suggests the K1200 has a functional advantage in modern graphics APIs, particularly for applications that rely on Vulkan for rendering or compute. The K1200’s newer Maxwell architecture also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4) compared to the GTX 675MX’s 1.2.175, reinforcing its edge in contemporary software environments.

The performance parity in aggregate scores is telling. The GTX 675MX’s average score of 8,427 and the K1200’s 8,265 place them both at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. This means that despite their architectural differences, they occupy the same performance tier in general-purpose compute. The GTX 675MX wins on raw throughput, while the K1200 wins on modern feature support and power efficiency, with its 45 W TDP being less than half of the GTX 675MX’s 100 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: pick the GTX 675MX if your priority is maximum OpenCL compute performance and you have the power budget to accommodate it. Its 21.4% lead in the head-to-head benchmark is the single largest performance gap between these two cards, and its higher average score confirms this trend. The GTX 675MX also offers more shading units (960 vs 512), more texture mapping units (80 vs 32), and more ROPs (32 vs 16), all of which feed its higher pixel rate (13.08 GPixel/s vs 16.53 GPixel/s) — wait, the K1200 actually has a higher pixel rate, so that specific metric favors the K1200. The GTX 675MX’s win is in texture rate (52.32 GTexel/s vs 33.06 GTexel/s) and raw FP32 compute (1,255.7 GFLOPS vs 1,057.8 GFLOPS).

Pick the Quadro K1200 if you need a lower-power, single-slot solution with a smaller physical footprint and modern API support. Its 45 W TDP, 160 mm length, and single-slot design make it suitable for compact workstations where the GTX 675MX’s MXM module form factor would not fit. The K1200 also doubles the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), which is critical for larger datasets in professional applications. The Vulkan support and the 1.4 API version are forward-looking, whereas the GTX 675MX is capped at Vulkan 1.2.175.

Ultimately, the GTX 675MX is the faster compute card, but the K1200 is the more versatile and efficient professional tool. For users running OpenCL-heavy workloads, the GTX 675MX is the obvious choice. For users prioritizing size, power draw, memory capacity, and modern API readiness, the K1200 is the better fit.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a landslide. The GTX 675MX returns a score of 10,723, while the Quadro K1200 manages 8,831. This 1,892-point gap translates to a 21.4% advantage for the GTX 675MX. This result is consistent with the hardware specifications: the GTX 675MX’s 960 shading units operating at a 1,255.7 GFLOPS FP32 rate outgun the K1200’s 512 shading units and 1,057.8 GFLOPS. The memory subsystem also plays a role, as the GTX 675MX’s 115.2 GB/s bandwidth is 44% higher than the K1200’s 80.19 GB/s, allowing it to feed its compute units more effectively.

The K1200 does not have a countervailing win in the head-to-head data; it has zero wins against the GTX 675MX’s one. However, the absence of a Vulkan score for the GTX 675MX means the K1200’s 7,698 Vulkan result stands uncontested. This is not a direct comparison, but it suggests that in Vulkan-based workloads, the K1200 is operational while the GTX 675MX may not be, given its older driver and API support. The K1200’s pixel rate of 16.53 GPixel/s also exceeds the GTX 675MX’s 13.08 GPixel/s, indicating that for certain rasterization-heavy tasks, the K1200 could be faster despite its lower overall compute.

The broader benchmark averages reinforce the head-to-head result. The GTX 675MX averages 8,427 across its two benchmarks (Geekbench Metal at 6,131 and Geekbench OpenCL at 10,723), while the K1200 averages 8,265 across its two (Geekbench OpenCL at 8,831 and Geekbench Vulkan at 7,698). The GTX 675MX’s average is 162 points higher, or roughly 2% better, which is a slim margin but consistent with its OpenCL dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX has an average benchmark score of 8,427, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K1200’s 8,265. This places the GTX 675MX about 2% higher in aggregate performance.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 675MX in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 675MX scores 10,723 against the K1200’s 8,831, giving the GTX 675MX a 21.4% lead. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark between the two.

Q: Does the Quadro K1200 have any benchmark advantage?

A: The K1200 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7,698, while the GTX 675MX has no Vulkan benchmark listed. This indicates the K1200 supports Vulkan workloads (API version 1.4) that the GTX 675MX cannot match, as the GTX 675MX is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 675MX has 2 GB. However, the GTX 675MX has a wider 256-bit memory bus and higher bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s, versus the K1200’s 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45 W, which is less than half of the GTX 675MX’s 100 W. The K1200 is a single-slot card with a 160 mm length, while the GTX 675MX uses an MXM module form factor.

Q: Are these cards in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the GTX 675MX and the Quadro K1200 sit at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, confirming that they are closely matched in overall performance despite their architectural differences.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 675MX is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The K1200, in contrast, uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with only 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher density of 12.6 million per mm². The Maxwell design is more efficient per transistor, which explains the K1200’s much lower TDP despite having half the shading units.

The clock behavior differs significantly. The GTX 675MX has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The K1200, however, has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1,033 MHz, with a memory clock of 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The K1200’s higher clock speeds partially compensate for its smaller core, but not for its narrower memory bus.

The compute configuration is starkly different. The GTX 675MX packs 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the GTX 675MX a texture rate of 52.32 GTexel/s and an FP32 throughput of 1,255.7 GFLOPS, both higher than the K1200’s 33.06 GTexel/s and 1,057.8 GFLOPS. However, the K1200 manages a higher pixel rate of 16.53 GPixel/s due to its higher clock speed, compared to the GTX 675MX’s 13.08 GPixel/s.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but their Vulkan support differs: the GTX 675MX supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4. The K1200 also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, whereas the GTX 675MX’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its notebook-oriented MXM design.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is memory. The GTX 675MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. This means the GTX 675MX has higher throughput but half the capacity, while the K1200 can hold larger datasets but moves them slower.

The physical specifications diverge completely. The GTX 675MX is an MXM Module with a slot width of "MXM Module" and no power connectors, drawing 100 W. The K1200 is a single-slot card measuring 160 mm (6.3 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, drawing 45 W, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The GTX 675MX has no suggested PSU listed, and its bus interface is MXM-B (3.0), while the K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

The production and release timing also differ. The GTX 675MX was released on 2012-09-30, and its predecessor is the GeForce 500M series, with the GeForce 700M as its successor. The K1200 was released later, on 2015-01-27, with the Quadro Fermi as its predecessor and Quadro Maxwell as its successor. Both are listed as end-of-life products. Neither card has a launch MSRP listed.

The transistor and die size numbers highlight the generational leap: the GTX 675MX’s GK104 chip is nearly twice the die size (294 mm² vs 148 mm²) and contains almost twice the transistors (3,540 million vs 1,870 million) of the K1200’s GM107. This explains the GTX 675MX’s higher performance and power draw, while the K1200’s more modern architecture achieves respectable performance at a fraction of the power.