NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 and the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 in different performance tiers despite both being end-of-life products. The GTX 760 records an average benchmark score of 9458 across all tests, while the Quadro K1200 sits lower at 8265. That difference places the GTX 760 at the 46th percentile among all GPUs, with the Quadro K1200 at the 43rd percentile, a modest but consistent gap across the recorded measurements.

The GTX 760 wins both head-to-head comparisons in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 11299 against 8831 for the Quadro K1200, a 27.9% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin widens dramatically: 12551 versus 7698, a 63% lead. For any workload captured by these two tests, the GTX 760 is the stronger choice.

However, the Quadro K1200 is not without its own arguments. It carries 4 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 2 GB on the GTX 760, doubles the display outputs with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connectors against a mixed DVI and HDMI set, and fits in a single slot with no power connectors required. Its 45 W TDP and 200 W suggested PSU recommendation versus 170 W and 450 W for the GTX 760 means the K1200 slots into far more constrained systems, including smaller workstations where the GTX 760's 241 mm length and dual-slot footprint may not fit at all.

Who should pick which? On raw compute density and raw throughput, the GTX 760 wins outright. Who should consider the Quadro K1200? Systems where power delivery is limited to PCIe slot power alone, where multi-monitor output matters more than peak frame rates, and where the smaller physical footprint is decisive. The data shows a 27.9% score gap in OpenCL and the 63% gap in Vulkan are simply too large to ignore for compute tasks, so the Quadro K1200 is the pick only for scenarios where the GTX 760 cannot be physically installed or powered.

For everyone else comparing raw performance, the GTX 760 is the clear verdict. The Quadro K1200 is a niche alternative for specific workstation constraints, not a performance competitor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 records an average benchmark score of 9458, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 records 8265. The GTX 760 also holds a higher percentile rank at 46 versus the Quadro K1200's 43.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 760 scores 11299 against 8831, a 27.9% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 760 scores 12551 against 7698, a 63% lead. The GTX 760 wins both recorded comparisons.

Q: Does the Quadro K1200 have any memory advantage?

A: Yes, the Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory compared to 2 GB on the GTX 760. However, the GTX 760 has a 256-bit memory bus and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K1200 uses a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has the lower power requirements?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a 45 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The GTX 760 has a 170 W TDP, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and needs a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card according to the database?

A: For the GTX 760, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK with an average score of 9474, just 0.2% higher. For the Quadro K1200, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375X with an average score of 8325, which is 0.7% higher.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The Quadro K1200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The GTX 760 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, for a total of four outputs as well, but the Quadro K1200 provides four identical DisplayPort connections.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The GTX 760 is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, while the Quadro K1200 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the manufacturing node is identical, but the underlying designs differ substantially.

The GTX 760 packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro K1200 uses 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, which is roughly half the transistor count but on a die roughly half the size, resulting in a slightly higher density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. This density figure indicates the Maxwell design on the Quadro K1200 is more efficient in how tightly it packs transistors, even though the total scale is smaller overall.

The GTX 760 belongs to the GeForce 700 generation, with the GeForce 600 series as its predecessor and the GeForce 900 series as successor. The Quadro K1200 sits in the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, with Quadro Fermi as predecessor and Quadro Maxwell as successor. Interestingly, the Quadro K1200's generation label references Kepler naming, a quirk in the naming scheme that does not match its actual Maxwell architecture.

Both chips lack any dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and neither has recorded FP16 performance data. On the API front, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, and both support Vulkan 1.2.175, though the Quadro K1200 lists Vulkan 1.4 support in its API fields.

The GTX 760 is built around 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K1200 uses 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. These counts reflect the different scale of the two designs: the GTX 760 has more than double the shading units, three times the texture units, and twice the ROPs of the Quadro K1200. The GTX 760 also features a dual-slot design with 2x 6-pin power connectors, while the Quadro K1200 is single-slot with no power connectors needed.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the two cards are numerous and relevant to system integration decisions. The GTX 760 features base clock of 980 MHz with boost clock of 1032 MHz, while the Quadro K1200 runs 954 MHz base clock 1033 MHz, a nearly identical boost clock within one MHz of each other. Memory clocks differ more: the GTX 760 runs 1502 MHz memory with 6 Gbps effective transfer rate, while the Quadro K1200 runs 1253 MHz memory clock with 5 Gbps effective transfer rate, though the GTX 760's wider memory bus multiplies this into significantly higher bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s on the GTX 760.

Memory configuration differences are substantial. The GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 256-bit bus width, yielding 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 128-bit bus width, yielding 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 760 delivers more than double the bandwidth of the Quadro K1200 despite having half the memory capacity.

Rates reflect this: the GTX 760 records 24.77 GPixel/s pixel rate 99. GTexel texture rate, 2.378 TFLOPS FP32 compute performance, while the Quadro K1200 records 16.53 GPixel/s pixel rate 33.06 GTexel/s texture rate, 1,057.8 GFLOPS FP32 compute performance, which is just under half the GTX 760's FP32 output.

Power and form factors strongly differ. The GTX 760 has a 170 W TDP and requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, with 450 W suggested PSU, and a length of 241 mm (9.5 inches) and 450 W suggested PSU. The Quadro K1200 has 45 W TDP and requires no power connectors, 200 W suggested PSU, and a length of 160 mm (6.3 inches), 69 mm height (2.7 inches), and 200 W suggested PSU. The GTX 760 is dual-slot width, the Quadro K1200 is single-slot width.

Bus interface differs: the GTX 760 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, the Quadro K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the GTX 760 has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro K1200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 760 has a launch MSRP of 249 USD, while the Quadro K1200 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes two direct comparisons between these GPUs. The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the GTX 760 scoring 11299 against the Quadro K1200's 8831, a 27.9% difference. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger gap: 12551 for the GTX 760 versus 7698 for the Quadro K1200, a 63% difference. Both tests favor the GTX 760, giving it 2 wins in head-to-head comparisons and the Quadro K1200 zero wins.

The Vulkan result is particularly notable. A 63% advantage is a decisive margin, larger than the OpenCL gap by a significant amount. This suggests the GTX 760's architecture handles the Vulkan workload substantially better than the Quadro K1200's Maxwell design, or that the GTX 760's higher compute throughput (2.378 TFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS) and memory bandwidth (192.3 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s) simply overwhelm the Quadro K1200 in this test.

The OpenCL results follow the same pattern but with a smaller margin. The GTX 760's 27.9% lead in OpenCL aligns more closely with its compute resource advantage: roughly double the shading units, texture units, and ROPs, combined with more than double the memory bandwidth. The Quadro K1200's 4 GB memory capacity does not translate into better OpenCL performance in the recorded data.

When compared to their nearest rivals, both cards perform within a narrow band. The GTX 760's closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK, scores 9474 on average, just 0.2% higher than the GTX 760's 9458. The AMD Radeon R7 M380 is 1.6% lower at 9313, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M is 1.7% lower at 9302. The Quadro K1200's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, scores 8325, 0.7% above the Quadro K1200's 8265. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 is 1.2% higher at 8167, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M is 1.6% higher at 8135. These rival positions show both cards are competitive within their respective performance classes, but the GTX 760's class sits roughly 14% higher in average score than the Quadro K1200's class.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760 wins in raw compute performance. Its scores in both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan are higher by 27.9% and 63% respectively, and its average benchmark score of 9458 exceeds the Quadro K1200's 8265 by a substantial margin. For any workload captured by these tests, the GTX 760 is the clear choice. Its higher pixel rate (24.77 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s) and texture rate (99.07 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s) reinforce this position. The GTX 760 also has more than double the FP32 throughput at 2.378 TFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS.

The Quadro K1200 wins in system integration scenarios. It has a 45 W TDP against the GTX 760's 170 W, so it can be powered from the PCIe slot alone with no additional power connectors required. Its single-slot design and 160 mm length make it easier to fit into compact workstations, whereas the GTX 760 is a dual-slot card at 241 mm. The Quadro K1200 also offers four identical mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which could simplify multi-monitor setups, and it doubles the memory capacity to 4 GB versus 2 GB, which may matter for larger datasets even if the bandwidth is lower at 80.19 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s.

The database also shows the Quadro K1200 records no Geekbench Metal score, while the GTX 760 has one at 4524. This absence does not constitute a win for either card, but it means the GTX 760 has broader benchmark coverage in the database.

For compute-heavy tasks, the GTX 760 wins decisively. For power-constrained or space-constrained workstation builds where performance is secondary to integration, the Quadro K1200 is the only viable option between the two. The data does not show any test where the Quadro K1200 outperforms the GTX 760, so the decision rests entirely on physical and power constraints rather than benchmark results.