NVIDIA Quadro 5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two professional workstation cards, with the newer Quadro K1200 taking the only head-to-head test recorded in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, the K1200 scores 8,831 points against the Quadro 5000's 7,289 points, a 21.2% advantage. That is a decisive margin in compute workloads, and it reflects a fundamental generational shift in how each card handles parallel processing.

The Quadro 5000's single recorded score places it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile. The K1200's average benchmark score of 8,265 also exceeds the Quadro 5000's 7,289 by roughly 13.4%. The K1200 wins in every category where both cards have data: raw compute, memory bandwidth efficiency relative to its bus width, and even the Vulkan API, where it scores 7,698 (the Quadro 5000 has no recorded Vulkan result).

For users prioritizing modern API support, the K1200 is the only option here. It supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro 5000 lists DirectX 12 (11_0) but has no Vulkan support recorded. The K1200 also drives four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, compared to the Quadro 5000's single DVI and dual DisplayPort setup. For multi-monitor professional environments, that is a meaningful difference in display flexibility.

The Quadro 5000 does retain one advantage from its wider memory bus: 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s on the K1200. That higher bandwidth could benefit memory-bound tasks, but the recorded benchmarks show the K1200 still outperforms it in OpenCL despite the bandwidth deficit. The data suggests the K1200's architecture extracts more useful work from each gigabyte per second.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras. The Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip built on Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip on Fermi architecture, also TSMC but on a much older 40 nm node. This process shrink alone explains a large portion of the performance-per-watt gap.

Transistor counts tell a striking story. The GF100 packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, giving a density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The GM107 contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, achieving 12.6 million per square millimeter. That is more than double the density, which explains how the K1200 delivers higher compute throughput with far fewer resources.

The K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Quadro 5000 counters with 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The K1200's higher shader count drives its FP32 throughput of 1,057.8 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 5000 manages 722.3 GFLOPS. However, the Quadro 5000's larger ROP count and TMU count suggest it was designed with different rasterization workloads in mind, even if its raw compute lags.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The K1200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro 5000 uses 2.5 GB on a 320-bit bus. The K1200's memory runs at 5 Gbps effective versus 3 Gbps on the Quadro 5000, but the bus width difference gives the older card more bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the K1200 has a base clock of 954 MHz and boost of 1,033 MHz, while the Quadro 5000's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database.

Power requirements reflect the architectural gulf. The K1200 draws 45 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and fits in a single slot with a suggested 200 W power supply. The Quadro 5000 draws 152 W, needs one 6-pin connector, occupies two slots, and suggests a 450 W power supply. Physical dimensions also differ: the K1200 measures 160 mm by 69 mm, while the Quadro 5000 is 248 mm by 111 mm.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The Quadro K1200 scores 8,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the Quadro 5000's 7,289 by 21.2%. The K1200's average benchmark score of 8,265 also exceeds the Quadro 5000's 7,289.

Q: Does the Quadro 5000 support Vulkan?

A: No. The database records Vulkan 1.4 support for the K1200, but the Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. Despite lower bandwidth, the K1200 wins the recorded compute test.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The K1200 has a 45 W TDP, needs no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W power supply. The Quadro 5000 has a 152 W TDP, requires one 6-pin connector, and suggests a 450 W power supply.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The K1200 has 512 shading units compared to the Quadro 5000's 352. The K1200 also delivers higher FP32 performance at 1,057.8 GFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS.

Q: How do their display outputs differ?

A: The K1200 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Quadro 5000 provides one DVI and two DisplayPort outputs. The K1200 also supports more modern display connectivity.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K1200 | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |

| Process node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,100 million |

| Die size | 148 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.6M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 954 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost clock | 1,033 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory clock | 5 Gbps effective | 3 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 2.5 GB |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 120.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 512 | 352 |

| TMUs | 32 | 44 |

| ROPs | 16 | 40 |

| Pixel rate | 16.53 GPixel/s | 11.29 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 33.06 GTexel/s | 22.57 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,057.8 GFLOPS | 722.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 152 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 450 W |

| Display outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | Not recorded |

| Dimensions | 160 mm x 69 mm | 248 mm x 111 mm |

| Release date | 2015-01-27 | 2011-02-22 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, where the K1200 wins decisively. The K1200 scores 8,831 against the Quadro 5000's 7,289, a 21.2% margin. This is not a narrow victory; it is a substantial generational leap. The K1200 achieves this despite having significantly lower memory bandwidth, which suggests the Maxwell architecture's compute efficiency far outstrips Fermi's.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the K1200's position. Its average score of 8,265 sits just 0.7% below the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325) and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8,167). The K1200 also edges out the GeForce GTX 950M by 1.6% and the Radeon R9 M360 by 1.7%. These are close margins against consumer cards, but the K1200 holds its own in a crowded field.

The Quadro 5000's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average score of 7,289 is only 0.9% above the GeForce GTX 750 (7,222), 1.2% above the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203), 1.6% above the GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171), and 1.7% above the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170). The Quadro 5000 is competitive with those parts, but they are all older or lower-tier products. The K1200's rivals are generally closer to its performance level, indicating it sits in a more modern performance class.

The pixel rate data shows the K1200's advantage in rasterization throughput: 16.53 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 33.06 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s. These metrics, combined with the OpenCL result, indicate the K1200 wins across both compute and graphics-oriented workloads in the recorded data.

The Vulkan benchmark, while only available for the K1200, adds another data point: 7,698. This score indicates the card's modern API support translates into tangible performance in contemporary workloads. The Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan score recorded, so no direct comparison is possible, but the absence itself is notable for users considering long-term software compatibility.

In summary, the K1200 is the clear winner in every measured category. Its 21.2% OpenCL lead, higher FP32 throughput, better pixel and texture rates, and modern API support make it the superior choice for current workloads. The Quadro 5000's only advantages are memory capacity and bandwidth, which do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data. The K1200 also consumes 107 W less power and occupies a single slot, making it easier to integrate into dense workstation environments.