NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that measurement, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scored 10273 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scored 8831 points. This gives the GTX 950A a decisive 16.3% lead. The Quadro K1200 has no wins in the head-to-head data.

Context from the nearest rivals in the database makes the margin clearer. The GTX 950A sits within 2% of three AMD parts: it is 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10362 points), 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10400 points), and 2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10481 points). It is 2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10070 points). The Quadro K1200, by contrast, is tightly clustered with a different set of rivals: it is 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8325 points), while leading the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 by 1.2% (8167 points), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M by 1.6% (8135 points), and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 by 1.7% (8129 points).

The percentile data reinforces the gap. The GTX 950A sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the GTX 950A is 10273, compared to 8265 for the Quadro K1200. The 16.3% delta in the single shared test is therefore consistent with the broader positioning of both cards.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental silicon. They share the GM107 chip, the Maxwell architecture, a 28 nm process node from TSMC, 1,870 million transistors, and a die size of 148 mm². The transistor density is identical at 12.6M per mm². The API support is also the same: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The differences begin with the execution resources. The GTX 950A carries 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations pipelines. The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and the same 16 ROPs. That means the GTX 950A has 25% more shaders and 25% more TMUs, which directly explains its higher peak throughput figures.

Clock speeds also favor the GTX 950A. Its base clock is 993 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz. The Quadro K1200 runs at 954 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost. The memory situation is more complex. The GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128 bit bus, with a memory clock of 1001 MHz and 2 Gbps effective data rate. The Quadro K1200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128 bit bus, with a memory clock of 1253 MHz and 5 Gbps effective data rate. The Quadro K1200's memory bandwidth is 80.19 GB/s, more than double the GTX 950A's 32.03 GB/s.

The resulting throughput numbers show the tradeoff. The GTX 950A achieves 17.98 GPixel/s pixel rate and 44.96 GTexel/s texture rate, with FP32 performance of 1,438.7 GFLOPS. The Quadro K1200 delivers 16.53 GPixel/s, 33.06 GTexel/s, and 1,057.8 GFLOPS. Neither card has FP16 support listed, nor do they have ray tracing or tensor cores.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The GTX 950A is rated at 75 W TDP and comes as an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. It has no power connectors and its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its intended use in laptops. The Quadro K1200 is a single-slot card rated at 45 W TDP, uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, has no power connectors, and offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The suggested PSU for the Quadro K1200 is 200 W. Its dimensions are 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The GTX 950A has no listed dimensions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scores 10273 points compared to 8831 for the NVIDIA Quadro K1200, a 16.3% advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Maxwell architecture on the GM107 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,870 million transistors and a 148 mm² die.

Q: Why does the Quadro K1200 have higher memory bandwidth despite being slower overall?

A: The Quadro K1200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with an 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 with 32.03 GB/s. The GTX 950A compensates with more shading units, higher clocks, and a higher pixel rate.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 950A is rated at 75 W, while the Quadro K1200 is rated at 45 W.

Q: How do their form factors differ?

A: The GTX 950A is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and portable-device-dependent outputs. The Quadro K1200 is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 160 mm by 69 mm with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 950A has 640 shading units, compared to 512 for the Quadro K1200. The GTX 950A also has 40 TMUs versus 32, while both have 16 ROPs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A | NVIDIA Quadro K1200 |

|---|---|---|

| Base clock | 993 MHz | 954 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1124 MHz | 1033 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1001 MHz, 2 Gbps effective | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 32.03 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading units | 640 | 512 |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 16.53 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 33.06 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 1,057.8 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 45 W |

| Slot width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Bus interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 200 W |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 160 mm, 69 mm |

| Generation | GeForce 900A | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800A | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | None listed | Quadro Maxwell |

| Release date | 2015-03-12 | 2015-01-27 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 10273 | 8831 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | Not listed | 7698 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 48 | 43 |

| Average benchmark score | 10273 | 8265 |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The GTX 950A leads the Quadro K1200 by 16.3% in the only shared benchmark, and it holds a 48th percentile position against all GPUs compared to the Quadro K1200's 43rd. Its compute resources, 640 shaders versus 512, and its higher clocks, 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost versus 954 MHz and 1033 MHz, give it a decisive edge in raw throughput. The FP32 result of 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS is a 36% gap in peak compute.

The Quadro K1200 does have advantages, but they are not in compute performance. It offers twice the memory capacity at 4 GB, a much faster memory type in GDDR5, and more than double the bandwidth at 80.19 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s. It also draws only 45 W compared to 75 W, and it comes in a standard single-slot PCIe form factor with four mini-DisplayPort outputs, making it a practical choice for workstation installations. The GTX 950A, as an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs, is clearly aimed at mobile or embedded systems.

For compute-bound OpenCL workloads, the recorded data favors the GTX 950A without qualification. Its percentiles, average score, and head-to-head result all point in the same direction. For scenarios requiring large memory capacity, high bandwidth, low power consumption, or a conventional desktop form factor, the Quadro K1200 is the better fit despite its lower compute scores. The choice comes down to the workload: raw throughput points to the GTX 950A, while memory and power efficiency point to the Quadro K1200.