NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear split between these two NVIDIA cards, but not in the way their product categories might suggest. The GeForce GTX 960 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, making it the stronger performer overall. However, the Quadro K1200 holds its own in specific scenarios that matter for professional workloads.

In compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, the GTX 960 dominates. Its OpenCL score of 18,925 versus the Quadro's 8,831 represents a 114.3% advantage, meaning the GTX 960 more than doubles the Quadro's compute throughput in this test. This is a decisive win for the consumer card, and it reflects the 960's larger silicon and higher shader count.

In Vulkan graphics workloads, the GTX 960 again takes the lead, scoring 9,231 against the Quadro's 7,698, a 19.9% difference. While not as dramatic as the OpenCL gap, this still shows the GTX 960 providing noticeably smoother performance in modern graphics APIs. For gaming or real-time rendering, this advantage is meaningful.

The Quadro K1200 does not win any of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, but its 4GB memory capacity is double the GTX 960's 2GB. In professional applications with large framebuffers or datasets that exceed 2GB, the Quadro could avoid memory swapping that would hamper the GTX 960. The data does not include a direct test that isolates memory capacity, but the specification difference is clear.

The average benchmark scores place the GTX 960 at 9,273 versus the Quadro's 8,265, a difference of roughly 12.2%. The percentile rankings are close: the GTX 960 sits at the 45th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro is at the 43rd. This indicates both are entry-to-midrange parts, but the GTX 960 is consistently ahead in raw compute.

For users prioritizing raw computational performance, especially in compute-heavy tasks like rendering or scientific simulation, the GTX 960 is the obvious choice. For users who need more memory and a low-profile, single-slot card for a workstation, the Quadro's 4GB capacity and 45W power draw are its strengths, but these traits do not translate into benchmark wins.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share a common foundation: both use NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture and are built on TSMC's 28nm process. Beyond that, the silicon differs significantly.

The GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip, a larger die at 228 mm² with 2,940 million transistors. The Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip, which is notably smaller at 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors. This die size difference explains much per the performance gap, as the GTX 960 packs roughly 57% more transistors into a 54% larger area.

The memory subsystems are also distinct. The GTX 960 has 2GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K1200 also uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus but carries 4GB, with a lower memory clock of 5 Gbps effective versus 7 Gbps on the GTX 960, resulting in 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 960 offers higher bandwidth, while the Quadro offers double the capacity.

Shader resources show a similar pattern. The GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro K1200 has half the shading units at 512, half the TMUs at 32, and half the ROPs at 16. This reduction in execution resources is why the Quadro lags in compute benchmarks.

Clock speeds also differ. The GTX 960 runs at a base clock of 1,127 MHz with a boost of 1,178 MHz. The Quadro K1200 is slower, at 954 MHz base and 1,033 MHz boost. Combined with the shader difference, the GTX 960's theoretical FP32 performance is 2.413 TFLOPS, while the Quadro K1200 manages 1,057.8 GFLOPS, less than half.

Power and physical design present the most practical differences. The GTX 960 has a 120W TDP, requires a 6-pin power connector, and is a dual-slot card at 241mm long. The Quadro K1200 has a 45W TDP, requires no external power connector, and is a single-slot card at 160mm long. The Quadro is also height-limited at 69mm, which is the only dimension the database records for it. The GTX 960 has no recorded height.

The bus interface differs: the GTX 960 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The API support is nearly identical with both supporting OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) while the Quadro only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The GTX 960 offers display outputs of one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and three DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in OpenCL compute?

A: The GTX 960 scores 18,925 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K1200 scores 8,831. This gives the GTX 960 a 114.3% lead, meaning it achieves more than double the performance.

Q: Does the Quadro have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the Quadro K1200 has 4GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 960 has 2GB. The Quadro also has a 128-bit bus width, but its memory bandwidth is lower at 80.19 GB/s versus the GTX 960's 112.2 GB/s.

Q: Which card has higher power requirements?

A: The GTX 960 has a TDP of 120W and requires a 6-pin power connector, while the Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45W and requires no external power connector. The GTX 960 also suggests a 300W PSU, while the Quadro suggests 200W.

Q: What is the core clock difference?

A: The GTX 960 runs at a base clock of 1,127 MHz and a boost clock of 1,178 MHz. The Quadro K1200 runs at 954 MHz base and 1,033 MHz boost, making it slower on both counts.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but they differ in DirectX support. The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K1200 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 960 has an average score of 9,273, while the Quadro K1200 has 8,265. The GTX 960 also sits in the 45th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Quadro's 43rd percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 | NVIDIA Quadro K1200 |

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

| Chip | GM206 | GM107 |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 2,940 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 228 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.9M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1,127 MHz | 954 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,178 MHz | 1,033 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 7 Gbps effective | 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.2 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,024 | 512 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 37.70 GPixel/s | 16.53 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 75.39 GTexel/s | 33.06 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.413 TFLOPS | 1,057.8 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | 45 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Dimensions (Length) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 160 mm (6.3 inches) |

| Dimensions (Height) | Not listed | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-01-21 | 2015-01-27 |

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

| Predecessor | GeForce 700 | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | GeForce 10 | Quadro Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | None |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results in the database cover two tests. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 960 scores 18,925 against the Quadro K1200's 8,831. This produces a delta of 114.1%, meaning the GTX 960 is more than twice as fast in this compute workload. The GTX 960's higher shading unit count (1,024 versus 512) and higher boost clock (1,178 MHz versus 1,033 MHz) are direct contributors to this outcome.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan. The GTX 960 scores 9,231, which is slightly lower than its OpenCL score but still well ahead of the Quadro's 7,698. The delta here is 19.9%, a smaller gap than in OpenCL but still a decisive win for the GTX 960. Vulkan's lower overhead may benefit the Quadro K1200 relative to its raw compute, but the GTX 960 still maintains a solid margin.

The GTX 960 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, giving it 2 wins and the Quadro 0 wins. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the GTX 960's 9,273 average is 12.1% higher than the Quadro's 8,265. The percentile rankings also align, with the GTX 960 at 45% and the Quadro at 43% of all GPUs.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the GTX 960's scores are close to those of the GTX 465 (9,294, a -0.2% delta) and the GTX 850M (9,302, a -0.3% delta), putting it in line with those parts. The Quadro K1200, meanwhile, scores near the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325, a -0.7% delta) and the GTX 980 (8,167, a 1.2% delta). This places the GTX 960 in a higher performance tier than the Quadro despite the Quadro's professional positioning.

The data does not include any tests where the Quadro wins, so the GTX 960 is the performance winner across all measured metrics. The Quadro's strengths lie in memory capacity and power efficiency, which are not directly captured in these benchmark scores. For users who value raw compute and graphics performance, the GTX 960 outperforms the Quadro K1200 by a substantial margin in OpenCL and by a clear margin in Vulkan.