NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 are both Maxwell-architecture GPUs, but they are engineered for fundamentally different roles. The Quadro K1200 is a low-profile, professional workstation card designed for stability and multi-display productivity, while the GTX 980 is a high-performance consumer gaming graphics card. Benchmark data shows a massive performance chasm between them, with the GTX 980 dominating in raw compute tasks. However, the K1200's specific feature set and form factor give it a distinct, if narrow, purpose in a professional environment.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split between these two cards is stark, defined entirely by their intended workloads. The GeForce GTX 980 is the clear winner in every benchmark test where both cards have data, demonstrating its overwhelming advantage in raw processing power. In the two shared tests—Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan—the GTX 980 delivers scores that are multiples of the Quadro K1200's results. This makes the GTX 980 the obvious choice for any application that is heavily dependent on GPU compute, such as 3D rendering, video editing, or high-end gaming. Its 2048 shading units and 4.981 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarf the K1200's 512 shading units and 1,057.8 GFLOPS, making it a far more capable engine for parallel processing tasks.

Conversely, the Quadro K1200's wins are not in raw speed, but in its physical and power characteristics. With a 45 W TDP and no power connectors required, it can be installed in systems with a modest 200 W power supply recommendation, a stark contrast to the GTX 980's 165 W TDP and 450 W PSU requirement. Its single-slot design and 160 mm length make it suitable for compact or densely populated workstations where space is at a premium. The K1200's four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are also a specific professional feature, enabling multi-monitor setups without the need for adapters, a configuration that is often more complex on consumer cards like the GTX 980, which offers a mix of DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort outputs. The K1200, therefore, wins in scenarios requiring low power consumption, a small physical footprint, and multi-display productivity, rather than high-performance compute.

Architecture Differences

While both cards are built on TSMC's 28 nm process, their underlying chips are vastly different in scale and capability. The Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip, a small, efficient design with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The GeForce GTX 980 uses the much larger GM204 chip, which packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die. This difference in physical size and transistor count is the primary driver of their performance disparity, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M / mm² for the K1200 and 13.1M / mm² for the GTX 980.

The execution resources are where the two diverge most significantly. The GTX 980 features 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro K1200 is configured with only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs—a quarter of the GTX 980's shading units and TMUs, and a quarter of its ROPs. This fundamental difference in core configuration explains the GTX 980's 4.981 TFLOPS FP32 compute capability versus the K1200's 1,057.8 GFLOPS. Clock speeds also favor the GTX 980, with a base clock of 1127 MHz and boost of 1216 MHz, compared to the K1200's 954 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost.

Memory architecture further separates the two. The Quadro K1200 uses a 128-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 running at 5 Gbps effective, yielding a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The GTX 980, in contrast, has a 256-bit bus with the same 4 GB of GDDR5, but running at 7 Gbps effective, more than doubling the bandwidth to 224.4 GB/s. This is crucial for the GTX 980's high-resolution texture work and compute tasks. The K1200 also uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the GTX 980 uses the newer PCIe 3.0 x16, offering double the theoretical bandwidth for data transfer to and from the host system.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is brief but conclusive, with the GeForce GTX 980 winning both recorded benchmark tests by a significant margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance, the GTX 980 scores 34,676, while the Quadro K1200 scores 8,831. This represents a 74.5% deltaPct in favor of the GTX 980, meaning the GTX 980 is roughly four times faster in this workload. This massive gap is a direct result of the GTX 980's superior core count, higher clock speeds, and greater memory bandwidth.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, measures graphics API performance in a modern, low-level API context. Here, the GTX 980 again dominates with a score of 22,543 against the K1200's 7,698, a 65.9% deltaPct. While the margin is slightly smaller than in OpenCL, it still represents a nearly three-fold performance advantage. The GTX 980's support for DirectX 12 (12_1) compared to the K1200's DirectX 12 (11_0) also suggests better future-proofing in modern graphics applications. In summary, the data shows the GTX 980 is not just faster, but in a completely different performance class, with an average benchmark score of 8,167 versus the K1200's 8,265, a figure that appears anomalous given the individual test results but places both cards at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 faster than the Quadro K1200 in all benchmarks?

A: Yes, in the two shared benchmark tests, the GTX 980 wins decisively. It scores 34,676 in Geekbench OpenCL and 22,543 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the K1200's 8,831 and 7,698, respectively.

Q: Why is the GTX 980 so much faster in compute workloads?

A: The GTX 980 has a significantly more powerful chip. It features 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, compared to the K1200's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This, combined with higher clocks and double the memory bandwidth (224.4 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), explains its dominance.

Q: Does the Quadro K1200 have any advantages over the GTX 980?

A: Yes, its advantages are in physical and power characteristics, not performance. The K1200 has a 45 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the GTX 980 has a 165 W TDP and needs two 6-pin connectors. The K1200 is also a single-slot, 160 mm card, making it much smaller than the dual-slot, 267 mm GTX 980.

Q: Are these cards from the same architecture?

A: Both are based on the Maxwell architecture, but they are different revisions. The K1200 uses the GM107 chip (Maxwell), while the GTX 980 uses the GM204 chip (Maxwell 2.0). Both are built on the same 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What is the difference in their display output capabilities?

A: The Quadro K1200 is specifically designed for multi-display setups, offering four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The GTX 980 offers a more consumer-oriented selection: one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and three DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 980 has a much higher memory bandwidth of 224.4 GB/s, due to its 256-bit bus and 7 Gbps effective memory speed. The Quadro K1200 has a 128-bit bus and 5 Gbps effective speed, resulting in 80.19 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key specification differences between the two GPUs, highlighting the fundamental hardware disparities.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K1200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | GM107 | GM204 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell 2.0 |

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

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 954 MHz | 1127 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1033 MHz | 1216 MHz |

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

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 224.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 32 | 128 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.53 GPixel/s | 77.82 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 33.06 GTexel/s | 155.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,057.8 GFLOPS | 4.981 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 165 W |

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

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 450 W |

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

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

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

| Dimensions (LxHxW) | 160 mm x 69 mm | 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2015-01-27 | 2014-09-18 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 549 USD |