NVIDIA GRID K2 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The benchmark data shows a clear split between the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and the NVIDIA GRID K2: the GRID K2 dominates in raw compute performance, while the K1200 counters with superior driver support for modern graphics APIs and a far more practical physical footprint. The GRID K2 wins the only shared benchmark by a decisive margin, but the K1200 remains a more versatile option for desktop workflows.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is not close. The NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 10,602 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 manages 8,831 points. This translates to a 16.7% deficit for the K1200, making the GRID K2 the clear winner in raw compute throughput. The GRID K2’s advantage here is substantial enough to place it in a different performance class for general-purpose GPU compute tasks.

This OpenCL result aligns with the broader performance context provided by each card’s average benchmark score. The GRID K2 averages 8,080 points across all its benchmark runs, while the K1200 averages 8,265 points. Despite the GRID K2’s decisive win in the head-to-head OpenCL test, its overall average is actually 2.3% lower than the K1200’s average. This discrepancy suggests that the K1200 performs relatively better in other workloads not directly compared here, while the GRID K2’s advantage is concentrated in OpenCL compute.

Looking at the rivals each card is grouped with reinforces this picture. The GRID K2’s average score of 8,080 puts it nearly level with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost, which scores 8,067 (a 0.2% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce 945M at 8,099 (a -0.2% difference). The K1200’s average of 8,265 places it just 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8,167). In percentile terms, the GRID K2 sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile — a negligible overall ranking difference despite the 16.7% gap in their direct OpenCL clash.

The GRID K2 also shows a separate Geekbench Metal score of 5,557, though no comparable Metal result exists for the K1200. The K1200, conversely, has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7,698, a test the GRID K2 does not appear in. This asymmetry in available benchmarks means the OpenCL test is the only true apples-to-apples comparison, and it belongs to the GRID K2.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the only directly comparable benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 10,602, beating the Quadro K1200’s 8,831 by 16.7%.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a higher average benchmark score of 8,265, while the GRID K2 averages 8,080. This makes the K1200 roughly 2.3% faster on average, even though it loses the OpenCL head-to-head.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each card?

A: The Quadro K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, and the GRID K2 sits at the 42nd percentile — a difference of just one percentile point.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. They differ on Vulkan: the K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GRID K2 supports an older Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The GRID K2 offers 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the Quadro K1200’s 80.19 GB/s. Both use 4 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The GRID K2 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, while the K1200 is a single-slot card at 160 mm (6.3 inches). The GRID K2 also requires power connectors, whereas the K1200 draws power solely from the PCIe slot.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The GRID K2, by contrast, uses the GK104 chip based on the older Kepler architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 3,540 million transistors spread across a 294 mm² die, giving a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter.

This transistor count difference is enormous — the GRID K2 has roughly 89% more transistors than the K1200 — and it shows in the compute resources. The GRID K2 features 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K1200 is far more modest, with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GRID K2’s raw throughput numbers reflect this: it delivers 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 95.36 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, and 23.84 GPixel/s of pixel rate. The K1200 produces 1,057.8 GFLOPS, 33.06 GTexel/s, and 16.53 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5, but the GRID K2 uses a 256-bit memory bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The K1200 is limited to a 128-bit bus, providing just 80.19 GB/s. The memory clock rates are nearly identical — 1,253 MHz for the K1200 and 1,250 MHz for the GRID K2 — so the bandwidth gap is entirely a function of the bus width.

The GRID K2 also carries a much heavier power footprint. Its TDP is 225 W, requiring a 550 W suggested power supply and both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector. The K1200 sips power at 45 W, needs no external power connectors, and works with a 200 W power supply. The GRID K2 is a dual-slot card with no display outputs whatsoever, while the K1200 is a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict for compute-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA GRID K2 is the superior performer. Its 16.7% lead in OpenCL and its 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, compared to the K1200’s 1,057.8 GFLOPS, make it the obvious choice for anyone prioritizing raw number-crunching power. The GRID K2’s doubled memory bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s over the K1200’s 80.19 GB/s further cements its advantage for data-intensive tasks.

However, the verdict flips for desktop graphics and practical deployment. The Quadro K1200 has a higher average benchmark score (8,265 vs. 8,080) and sits one percentile higher (43rd vs. 42nd). It supports Vulkan 1.4, a significantly newer version than the GRID K2’s Vulkan 1.2.175, and it offers four display outputs where the GRID K2 offers none. The K1200’s 45 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it dramatically easier to install in a standard workstation.

The GRID K2’s launch MSRP is 5,199 USD, which positions it as a server-grade component. There is no launch MSRP listed for the K1200. The GRID K2’s predecessor and successor fields are both null, while the K1200 lists a predecessor of Quadro Fermi and a successor of Quadro Maxwell. Both cards are end-of-life, but the GRID K2 was released earlier, on 2013-05-10, versus the K1200’s 2015-01-27.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K1200 | NVIDIA GRID K2 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

| Chip | GM107 | GK104 |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 954 MHz | None listed |

| Boost Clock | 1033 MHz | None listed |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz | 1250 MHz |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 32 | 128 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.53 GPixel/s | 23.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 33.06 GTexel/s | 95.36 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,057.8 GFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 225 W |

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

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 550 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-01-27 | 2013-05-10 |

Where Each One Wins

The GRID K2 wins decisively in compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 10,602 is 16.7% higher than the K1200’s, and it doubles the K1200’s memory bandwidth at 160.0 GB/s. With 1,536 shading units versus 512, and 128 TMUs versus 32, the GRID K2 is built for parallel throughput. Its 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 compute makes it the pick for GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or any workload that scales with raw shading unit count and memory bandwidth. The 225 W TDP and 550 W PSU requirement are acceptable trade-offs in a server chassis where power is not constrained.

The Quadro K1200 wins in versatility and day-to-day desktop use. It has the higher average benchmark score (8,265 vs. 8,080) and supports Vulkan 1.4, which the GRID K2 lacks. Its four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs allow direct monitor connection, a capability entirely absent from the GRID K2. The 45 W TDP and single-slot design mean it can fit into compact workstations without power connector considerations, and the PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is sufficient for its bandwidth needs. Its 160 mm length is roughly 40% shorter than the GRID K2’s 267 mm, easing installation in tight cases.

For users who need both compute and display output, the choice is stark: the GRID K2 offers no display outputs at all, making it unsuitable as a primary graphics card. The K1200, meanwhile, handles display and light-to-moderate compute simultaneously. The GRID K2’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface gives it a bus bandwidth advantage over the K1200’s PCIe 2.0 x16, but this only matters in data-transfer-heavy scenarios. The K1200’s newer release date (2015 vs. 2013) and its Maxwell architecture lineage (with a successor in Quadro Maxwell) suggest it is the more modern design, despite the GRID K2’s raw power edge.