NVIDIA Quadro 6000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear but narrow advantage for the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 in the only directly comparable workload recorded. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 points against the Quadro K1200's 8,831 points, a margin of 11.5%. This places the Quadro 6000 in the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile. The Quadro 6000 also holds a higher average benchmark score of 9,846 compared to the K1200's 8,265.

However, the Quadro K1200 has one measurable advantage that the Quadro 6000 lacks entirely: Vulkan support. The K1200 records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7,698, while the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan benchmark data and no Vulkan API support listed. This means that in any Vulkan-based compute or rendering workload, the K1200 is the only one of the two that can participate at all.

The Quadro 6000 wins in raw compute throughput, as reflected by its higher OpenCL result. The K1200 wins in API compatibility and efficiency metrics, though its only recorded win is the presence of Vulkan rather than a head-to-head score. The wins tally reflects this: the database shows 1 win for the Quadro 6000 and 0 wins for the Quadro K1200 in direct comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip built on Fermi architecture at a 40 nm process node from TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture at a 28 nm node, also from TSMC. It holds 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die, giving it a higher density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The Quadro 6000 carries 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s and a memory clock of 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro 6000 has nearly 1.8 times the memory bandwidth, which directly supports its higher compute throughput in memory-intensive workloads.

Compute unit counts also differ. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Quadro 6000 achieves nearly identical pixel and texture rates: 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s, versus 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s for the K1200. Floating-point performance is also close: the Quadro 6000 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS FP32, while the K1200 delivers 1,057.8 GFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics diverge sharply. The Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler, and needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 550 W. The Quadro K1200 has a 45 W TDP, fits in a single slot, draws power entirely from the PCIe slot with no additional connectors, and only requires a 200 W power supply. The Quadro 6000 measures 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the K1200 is 160 mm long and 69 mm tall.

Display outputs also differ. The Quadro 6000 offers 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video. The Quadro K1200 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the K1200 lists Vulkan 1.4 support. The Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan version listed.

Release timing separates the two by several years. The Quadro 6000 launched on December 9, 2010, with a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD. The Quadro K1200 launched on January 27, 2015, with no recorded MSRP. Both are now end-of-life products. The Quadro 6000 belongs to the Quadro Fermi generation (x000 series), while the K1200 is listed under Quadro Kepler (Kx200 series), despite using a Maxwell chip. The Quadro 6000's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is Quadro Kepler. The K1200's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice depending on workload priorities. For OpenCL compute tasks, the Quadro 6000 is the stronger performer, delivering an 11.5% higher score than the K1200. Its larger memory pool (6 GB versus 4 GB) and significantly wider memory bus (384-bit versus 128-bit) give it a clear edge in bandwidth-bound scenarios. The 143.4 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s bandwidth difference is substantial and would matter in large dataset processing.

For users who need Vulkan support, the Quadro K1200 is the only option between these two. It also consumes far less power (45 W versus 204 W), requires no auxiliary power connectors, fits in a single slot, and takes up less physical space. The K1200's higher shading unit count (512 versus 448) and slightly higher FP32 throughput (1,057.8 versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS) suggest it can handle similar compute loads at lower power, even if its OpenCL score trails.

The Quadro 6000 occupies the 47th percentile among all GPUs, just above the K1200's 43rd percentile. Its average score of 9,846 places it close to the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, 0.1% ahead), the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, 0.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.7% ahead), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, 1.1% behind). The K1200's average of 8,265 sits near the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325, 0.7% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8,167, 1.2% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8,135, 1.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8,129, 1.7% ahead).

Professionals with legacy Fermi-era software stacks or those prioritizing maximum memory bandwidth should choose the Quadro 6000. Professionals running Vulkan-based applications, working in constrained chassis, or with limited power budgets should choose the Quadro K1200.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 11.5% higher than the Quadro K1200's 8,831.

Q: Does the Quadro K1200 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Quadro K1200 lists Vulkan 1.4 support and records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7,698. The Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan version listed.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth on a 384-bit bus, while the Quadro K1200 has 80.19 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP and requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector with a 550 W suggested power supply. The Quadro K1200 has a 45 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and requires a 200 W suggested power supply.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, while the Quadro 6000 has 448.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The Quadro 6000 was released on December 9, 2010. The Quadro K1200 was released on January 27, 2015.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro 6000 wins that test with a score of 9,846 against the Quadro K1200's 8,831, a delta of 11.5%. This is the largest and only measurable performance gap between the two cards in a shared workload.

The significance of this result is contextualized by each card's position among its nearest rivals. The Quadro 6000's score of 9,846 places it barely ahead of the Quadro M2000M (9,832, a 0.1% difference) and the FirePro W5000 (9,803, a 0.4% difference), and 0.7% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780). It trails the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959) by 1.1%. These margins are all within a few percentage points, indicating that the Quadro 6000's OpenCL performance is competitive with a cluster of mid-range GPUs from several generations.

The Quadro K1200's OpenCL score of 8,831 places it ahead of the GeForce GTX 980 (8,167, a 1.2% gap), the GeForce GTX 950M (8,135, a 1.6% gap), and the Radeon R9 M360 (8,129, a 1.7% gap), while trailing the Radeon R9 M375X (8,325) by 0.7%. Its average benchmark score of 8,265 is lower than its OpenCL score because the average includes its Vulkan result of 7,698, which drags the mean down.

The 11.5% OpenCL gap between the two cards is larger than the gaps each card shows to its nearest rivals, which are all under 2%. This suggests that the architectural differences between Fermi and Maxwell, combined with the Quadro 6000's much wider memory bus, produce a more meaningful performance separation than what separates either card from its closest competitors. The Quadro 6000's 143.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s on the K1200 is the most plausible driver of this difference, as raw FP32 throughput is nearly identical (1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS).

The K1200's Vulkan score of 7,698 has no counterpart on the Quadro 6000, so no direct comparison is possible. However, the existence of that score, combined with the K1200's Vulkan 1.4 API support, means that any Vulkan workload is exclusively addressable by the K1200. The Quadro 6000 cannot run Vulkan workloads at all, per the recorded data.