NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M are two Maxwell-based GPUs from 2015, but they target different segments: the K1200 is a professional workstation card, while the GTX 950M is a mobile consumer part. Both share the same GM107 chip, 1,870 million transistors, 148 mm² die size, and 28 nm TSMC process, yet their benchmark profiles and hardware configurations diverge significantly. The data shows a 1-1 split in the head-to-head benchmarks, with each card claiming a decisive victory in a different workload. This analysis breaks down the numbers to determine which card suits which use case.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available benchmark results reveal a clear performance split. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 950M scores 9,745, which is 9.4% higher than the Quadro K1200’s 8,831. This is a substantial margin for a compute-oriented API. The GTX 950M’s advantage here aligns with its hardware: it packs 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units, compared to the K1200’s 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. The GTX 950M also runs at a higher base clock of 993 MHz versus 954 MHz, and boosts to 1,124 MHz versus 1,033 MHz. These differences compound to give the GTX 950M a raw FP32 throughput of 1,438.7 GFLOPS, which is 36% higher than the K1200’s 1,057.8 GFLOPS. The OpenCL result reflects this compute advantage, though the 9.4% delta is smaller than the theoretical FP32 gap, suggesting other bottlenecks like memory bandwidth play a role.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the tables turn dramatically. The Quadro K1200 scores 7,698, which is 18% higher than the GTX 950M’s 6,525. This is a significant victory for the workstation card. The K1200’s advantage in Vulkan is notable because its shading core count is lower and its clocks are slower. The likely culprit is memory: the K1200 uses GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 950M is saddled with DDR3 memory at just 28.80 GB/s. That is a 2.8x bandwidth deficit for the GTX 950M, which likely throttles graphics-heavy Vulkan workloads that depend on frequent memory access. The K1200’s pixel rate of 16.53 GPixel/s is also closer to the GTX 950M’s 17.98 GPixel/s than the compute gap might suggest, and its texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s trails the GTX 950M’s 44.96 GTexel/s but is less critical in Vulkan’s draw-call-heavy scenarios.

Comparing overall averages, the Quadro K1200 has an average benchmark score of 8,265, sitting at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 950M’s average is 8,135, at the 42nd percentile. The K1200’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, which scores 8,325 and is 0.7% ahead of the K1200. Meanwhile, the GTX 950M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R9 M360 at 8,129, which is 0.1% behind the GTX 950M. Interestingly, the two cards are listed as rivals to each other: the K1200’s rivals include the GTX 950M with a delta of 1.6% (meaning the K1200 is ahead), while the GTX 950M’s rivals include the GTX 980, which is 0.4% ahead of it. This places both cards in a similar performance tier despite their architectural differences.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture: neither card is a universal winner, and the choice depends entirely on the workload. The GTX 950M wins the OpenCL compute test by 9.4%, leveraging its higher shading unit count and clock speeds. If the primary use case is general-purpose GPU computing — tasks like OpenCL-accelerated rendering, physics simulation, or data processing — the GTX 950M is the stronger performer. Its 1,438.7 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is the highest between the two, and the benchmark confirms this advantage.

The Quadro K1200, conversely, wins the Vulkan graphics test by a commanding 18%. For graphics-intensive workloads that rely on the Vulkan API — modern game engines, real-time visualization, or CAD viewport rendering — the K1200 is clearly superior. The GDDR5 memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s is the decisive factor, providing nearly 3x the memory throughput of the GTX 950M’s DDR3. This makes the K1200 better suited for tasks that involve large textures, high-resolution framebuffers, or complex scene geometry.

In terms of overall average benchmark score, the K1200 edges out the GTX 950M by 130 points (8,265 vs 8,135), a 1.6% difference. This puts the K1200 slightly ahead in aggregate performance, but the margin is small enough that individual workload characteristics dominate. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the K1200 is at the 43rd percentile, the GTX 950M at the 42nd, meaning both sit in the lower-middle tier of all GPUs. Neither card is a performance leader, but they are closely matched overall, with the K1200 holding a marginal average advantage.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: for compute-heavy workloads, the GTX 950M is the pick; for graphics-heavy Vulkan workloads, the Quadro K1200 is the pick. If forced to choose a single card for mixed usage, the K1200’s higher average score and superior memory bandwidth give it a slight edge, but the GTX 950M’s compute advantage is too large to ignore for number-crunching tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 950M wins in scenarios that exploit its raw compute throughput and texture processing capabilities. Its 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, combined with higher clocks (993 MHz base, 1,124 MHz boost), deliver 1,438.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and a texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s. These specs make it well-suited for OpenCL workloads that are shader-bound, such as image processing filters, machine learning inference (in the FP32 domain), or physics calculations that leverage the GPU’s parallel cores. The 9.4% OpenCL benchmark win is empirical proof of this strength. Additionally, the GTX 950M’s higher pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s means it can fill framebuffers faster, which benefits traditional rasterization tasks even if memory bandwidth limits overall performance.

The Quadro K1200 wins in graphics-centric scenarios, particularly those that stress memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth is the standout feature, providing 2.8x the bandwidth of the GTX 950M’s DDR3. This is why the K1200 dominates the Vulkan benchmark by 18%: Vulkan workloads often involve heavy memory traffic for descriptor sets, vertex buffers, and texture fetches. The K1200’s 16.53 GPixel/s pixel rate is also respectable, only 8% lower than the GTX 950M’s, despite having fewer ROPs (16 on both, but lower clocks). For professional graphics applications like CAD, 3D modeling, or scientific visualization that use Vulkan, the K1200’s memory advantage translates directly into smoother viewport performance and higher frame rates. The K1200 also has the advantage of a 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 output configuration, making it suitable for multi-monitor workstation setups, whereas the GTX 950M’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” reflecting its mobile laptop origins.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has an average benchmark score of 8,265, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M’s 8,135. The K1200 is 1.6% ahead of the GTX 950M in this aggregate metric.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 950M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 950M scores 9,745 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 9.4% higher than the Quadro K1200’s 8,831. The GTX 950M’s advantage comes from its 640 shading units and higher clock speeds.

Q: Why does the Quadro K1200 win the Vulkan benchmark by such a large margin?

A: The K1200 scores 7,698 in Geekbench Vulkan, an 18% lead over the GTX 950M’s 6,525. The primary reason is memory bandwidth: the K1200 has GDDR5 memory delivering 80.19 GB/s, while the GTX 950M uses DDR3 with only 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards use the same GPU chip?

A: Yes, both the Quadro K1200 and the GeForce GTX 950M are built on the GM107 chip, using the Maxwell architecture. They share the same 1,870 million transistors, 148 mm² die size, and 28 nm TSMC process node.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45 W and requires a 200 W suggested power supply. The GeForce GTX 950M has a TDP of 75 W, and no suggested PSU is listed because it is an integrated mobile part (IGP form factor).

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GeForce GTX 950M has 640 shading units, while the Quadro K1200 has 512. The GTX 950M also has 40 TMUs versus the K1200’s 32, but both have 16 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

Despite sharing the same GM107 chip and Maxwell architecture, the two cards are configured quite differently. The process node is identical at 28 nm, with the same transistor count (1,870 million) and die size (148 mm²), resulting in the same transistor density of 12.6M/mm². However, the execution resources diverge: the GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and the same 16 ROPs. The GTX 950M’s higher core count is paired with faster clocks — 993 MHz base and 1,124 MHz boost versus the K1200’s 954 MHz base and 1,033 MHz boost. This yields a significant FP32 compute advantage for the GTX 950M: 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS. The texture rate follows suit: 44.96 GTexel/s for the GTX 950M versus 33.06 GTexel/s for the K1200. Pixel rates are closer, at 17.98 GPixel/s for the GTX 950M and 16.53 GPixel/s for the K1200.

The memory subsystem is where the K1200’s workstation pedigree shows. Both cards have 4 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the K1200 uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), achieving 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding just 28.80 GB/s — a 2.8x deficit. This memory bandwidth gap is the defining architectural difference and explains the Vulkan benchmark outcome. In other aspects, the cards share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K1200 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 45 W TDP, and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The GTX 950M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor for laptops) with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The K1200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GTX 950M’s display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent.” Both are end-of-life products, with the K1200 released on January 27, 2015, and the GTX 950M on March 12, 2015. The K1200’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell; the GTX 950M’s predecessor is GeForce 800M, and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.