NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes one direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 680M scores 9230, while the Quadro K1200 scores 8831. This gives the GTX 680M a 4.3% advantage in raw compute throughput. The delta is modest, but it places the GTX 680M ahead in this single head-to-head matchup.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro K1200 holds an average benchmark score of 8265, which places it at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. The GTX 680M, by contrast, has an average score of 7023, landing at the 39th percentile. This is an interesting inversion: the GTX 680M wins the direct OpenCL comparison, yet its overall average across all recorded benchmarks is lower than the Quadro K1200's average. The explanation lies in benchmark composition. The GTX 680M includes a Metal benchmark score of 4815, which drags its average down substantially, while the Quadro K1200's recorded benchmarks consist of OpenCL at 8831 and Vulkan at 7698, both of which are relatively strong.

The nearest rival data reinforces the Quadro K1200's position. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X, with an average score of 8325, sits just 0.7% ahead of the Quadro K1200. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, at 8167, is 1.2% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, at 8135, trails by 1.6%, and the AMD Radeon R9 M360, at 8129, is 1.7% behind. These are tight margins, indicating that the Quadro K1200 operates in a competitive cluster where small deltas separate adjacent products.

For the GTX 680M, the nearest rival field tells a different story. The NVIDIA T600 averages 7035, a mere 0.2% ahead. The AMD Radeon R5 M240, at 6975, is 0.7% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M, at 6946, trails by 1.1%. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970, at 7157, sits 1.9% ahead of the GTX 680M. The GTX 680M's average is thus bracketed by a narrow range of rivals, but all of them are clustered below the Quadro K1200's average score of 8265. Benchmark results indicate that the Quadro K1200, despite losing the single direct OpenCL comparison, has a higher overall standing in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, while the GTX 680M uses the GK104 chip, built on the older Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ considerably. The GM107 packs 1,870 million transistors into a die size of 148 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The GK104 contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. So the Quadro K1200's chip is more densely packed, while the GTX 680M's chip is physically larger and carries nearly twice the transistor count.

The memory subsystems differ in width and bandwidth. The Quadro K1200 has a 128 bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, running at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, producing 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 680M has a 256 bit bus, also with 4 GB of GDDR5, but its memory runs at 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective speed, yielding 115.2 GB/s. The wider bus gives the GTX 680M a 43.7% bandwidth advantage, which matters for texture-heavy workloads and large data transfers.

Compute resources are distributed very differently. The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GTX 680M has 1344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. On paper, the GTX 680M has more than double the shading units and more than triple the texture units. The pixel rate for the GTX 680M is 21.22 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s for the Quadro K1200. The texture rate is 84.90 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s, a substantial gap. In floating point performance, the GTX 680M reaches 2.038 TFLOPS, while the Quadro K1200 delivers 1,057.8 GFLOPS, so the GTX 680M is roughly 92.7% higher in FP32 throughput.

Clock speeds, however, favor the Quadro K1200. Its base clock is 954 MHz with a boost of 1033 MHz. The GTX 680M runs at a base of 719 MHz and a boost of 758 MHz. The Quadro K1200's higher clocks partially compensate for its lower core count, but not enough to close the raw throughput gap. The data shows that the GTX 680M's architectural advantage in shader count and memory bandwidth is decisive in compute-bound tasks.

Power and physical design also diverge. The Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45 W, is single-slot, uses no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W power supply. The GTX 680M has a TDP of 100 W and comes as an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface, which means it is designed for laptop or modular systems. The Quadro K1200 connects via PCIe 2.0 x16 and offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The GTX 680M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its mobile-oriented design. The Quadro K1200 measures 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the GTX 680M has no recorded dimensions, consistent with its MXM form factor.

API support is similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 680M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro K1200 also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 7698 in the database, while no Vulkan score is recorded for the GTX 680M. The GTX 680M has a Metal score of 4815, a test that the Quadro K1200 does not appear in.

Release timing also differs. The Quadro K1200 was released on 2015-01-27, while the GTX 680M was released earlier on 2012-06-03. The Quadro K1200's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The GTX 680M's predecessor is GeForce 500M and its successor is GeForce 700M. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 680M wins in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 9230 beats the Quadro K1200's 8831 by 4.3%, and its FP32 rating of 2.038 TFLOPS is nearly double the Quadro K1200's 1,057.8 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 84.90 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 21.22 GPixel/s are far ahead of the Quadro K1200's 33.06 GTexel/s and 16.53 GPixel/s. The 256 bit memory bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth give it a clear edge in memory-intensive workloads. For tasks that hammer shader units, texture fetch, or large framebuffers, the GTX 680M is the stronger part.

The Quadro K1200 wins in overall benchmark standing and efficiency. Its average benchmark score of 8265 exceeds the GTX 680M's 7023 by roughly 17.7%. Its percentile rank of 43 versus 39 reflects a better overall position in the database. The Quadro K1200 also has a Vulkan score of 7698, which demonstrates strong performance in that API, and it produces that performance at a TDP of 45 W, less than half the GTX 680M's 100 W. The Quadro K1200 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 200 W suggested PSU, making it far easier to integrate into a compact workstation. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs also give it a professional display flexibility that the GTX 680M cannot match, since the GTX 680M's outputs depend on the host device.

The use-case split is clear. The GTX 680M suits scenarios where raw GPU throughput is the priority and the host system can handle a 100 W MXM module. The Quadro K1200 suits environments where power draw, slot footprint, and multi-display output matter, and where the workload can leverage OpenCL or Vulkan without needing the GTX 680M's extra shader count. The data does not show a scenario where the Quadro K1200 wins in pure compute, but its higher average score across the database suggests that real-world workloads, as reflected in the benchmark aggregate, tend to favor it.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 9230 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8831, a 4.3% difference in favor of the GTX 680M.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K1200 has an average benchmark score of 8265, placing it at the 43rd percentile. The GTX 680M has an average score of 7023, placing it at the 39th percentile.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a 128 bit bus and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 680M has a 256 bit bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45 W, while the GTX 680M has a TDP of 100 W.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan, and at what version?

A: The Quadro K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a recorded Vulkan score of 7698. The GTX 680M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, but no Vulkan benchmark score is recorded for it.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare?

A: The Quadro K1200's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, which is 0.7% ahead. The GTX 680M's closest rival is the NVIDIA T600, which is 0.2% ahead.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. For users who need maximum compute throughput, the GTX 680M is the choice. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, delivers 2.038 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, and offers substantially higher texture and pixel rates on a wider memory bus. Its 1344 shading units and 112 TMUs are simply far beyond the Quadro K1200's 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. The GTX 680M's 100 W TDP and MXM form factor, however, restrict it to systems designed for modular mobile GPUs.

For users who prioritize overall database standing, efficiency, and professional display outputs, the Quadro K1200 is the better pick. Its average benchmark score of 8265 is well above the GTX 680M's 7023, and its 43rd percentile rank beats the GTX 680M's 39th. It achieves this at 45 W, in a single-slot form factor, with no power connectors and a 200 W suggested PSU. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs provide multi-monitor capability that the GTX 680M, with its portable device dependent outputs, cannot guarantee. The Quadro K1200 also supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a solid Vulkan score of 7698, while the GTX 680M's Vulkan support stops at 1.2.175 with no recorded score.

The decisive factor is the workload. Compute-heavy tasks with high shader utilization favor the GTX 680M. Power-sensitive, display-centric workstation tasks favor the Quadro K1200. The recorded benchmark data does not crown an overall winner, because the two GPUs answer different design briefs. The Quadro K1200 is the more balanced part by average score, but the GTX 680M is the raw performance leader in the single direct comparison available.