NVIDIA Quadro K1200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two workstation cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is close. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9,149, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 trails at 8,831 — a 3.5% deficit for the K1200. That is a narrow margin, but it flips the expected narrative: the older, mobile-oriented K4100M edges out the newer desktop card in raw compute throughput.

Context from the nearest-rival data sharpens this picture. The K1200's average benchmark score sits at 8,265, which places it 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8,167). The K4100M, by contrast, averages 7,906 — 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7,925) and 1.7% behind both the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8,039) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8,040). The delta between the two cards in average score is roughly 4.5% in favor of the K1200, even though the K4100M wins the single head-to-head OpenCL test.

The percentile rankings reinforce the split. The K1200 lands in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the K4100M sits at the 41st. That two-point gap is modest but consistent with the K1200's higher average. In the OpenCL test specifically, the K4100M's win is real but small — not enough to overturn the overall standing. The K4100M also carries a Geekbench Metal score of 6,662, a test the K1200 lacks entirely, which suggests the mobile card has broader API coverage even if that does not affect the direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational and structural. The K1200 uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The K4100M uses the GK104 chip on the older Kepler architecture, also 28 nm at TSMC, but packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die. The K4100M's die is nearly double the size and carries nearly double the transistor count, yet its transistor density is slightly lower: 12.0M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm² for the K1200.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The K1200 runs at a 954 MHz base and 1,033 MHz boost, while the K4100M is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. The K1200's higher clocks partially compensate for its smaller silicon, but the K4100M's raw resource advantage is overwhelming: 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, versus 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the K1200. Memory bandwidth also favors the K4100M: 102.4 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, compared to 80.19 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. Both use 4 GB of GDDR5, but the K4100M's memory runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) versus 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the K1200 — the K1200's faster memory clock cannot overcome its narrower bus.

The K4100M's shading-unit advantage translates directly to compute figures. It delivers 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32, versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS on the K1200 — a 54% lead. Texture rate is similarly lopsided: 67.78 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are nearly identical, with the K4100M at 16.94 GPixel/s and the K1200 at 16.53 GPixel/s, which makes sense given the ROP count difference is offset by the K1200's higher clocks.

Power and form factor diverge sharply. The K1200 is a 45 W single-slot card requiring no power connectors and a 200 W suggested PSU. The K4100M is a 100 W MXM module with no suggested PSU listed, designed for laptop or portable chassis integration. The K1200 outputs to four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connectors; the K4100M's display outputs are portable-device dependent. API support is similar on DirectX (12 with 11_0 feature level) and OpenGL (4.6), but Vulkan support differs: the K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K4100M only reaches Vulkan 1.2.175.

The generation labels in the FACT PACK are worth noting: the K1200 is listed under "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" while the K4100M is under "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)" — the M suffix denotes its mobile lineage. Both are end-of-life products, with the K4100M released on 2013-07-22 and the K1200 on 2015-01-27, making the K1200 roughly 18 months newer.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced conclusion. For raw compute throughput, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the stronger card: it wins the only direct benchmark head-to-head (OpenCL: 9,149 vs 8,831) and holds a massive 54% FP32 advantage, backed by more than double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. Its 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is also superior, and it carries a Metal benchmark score that the K1200 cannot match.

However, the K1200 is the better all-round product in aggregate. Its average benchmark score is 8,265 versus 7,906 for the K4100M, it sits two percentile points higher (43rd vs 41st), and it achieves this with a fraction of the power draw (45 W vs 100 W) and a single-slot form factor that fits standard desktop workflows. The K1200's higher clocks (1,033 MHz boost vs 706 MHz) and newer Maxwell architecture allow it to punch above its smaller silicon in real-world mixed workloads.

The choice depends on the use case. If the workload is compute-bound — OpenCL-heavy rendering, simulation, or number-crunching — the K4100M's raw throughput and wider memory bus make it the data-driven pick. If the workload is varied, power-sensitive, or requires modern API support (Vulkan 1.4 vs 1.2.175), the K1200's higher average score and efficiency win out. The K4100M also carries a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD, while the K1200 has no listed launch price.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9,149, beating the NVIDIA Quadro K1200's 8,831 by 3.5%.

Q: How much faster is the K4100M in raw FP32 compute?

A: The K4100M delivers 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32, while the K1200 produces 1,057.8 GFLOPS. That is a 54% lead for the K4100M.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The K1200 averages 8,265 across all benchmark scores, versus 7,906 for the K4100M — a difference of roughly 4.5% in favor of the K1200.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K4100M only supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The K4100M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 6,662, which the K1200 lacks.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The K4100M has 102.4 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, while the K1200 has 80.19 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The K1200 draws 45 W and requires no power connectors and a 200 W suggested PSU. The K4100M draws 100 W and has no suggested PSU listed.

Where Each One Wins

The K4100M wins in every metric that scales with silicon area. Its 3,540 million transistors and 294 mm² die give it 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs — all roughly double the K1200's counts. This translates to wins in FP32 (1.627 TFLOPS vs 1,057.8 GFLOPS), texture rate (67.78 GTexel/s vs 33.06 GTexel/s), and memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s). The K4100M also wins the direct OpenCL head-to-head and adds a Metal benchmark score (6,662) that the K1200 cannot contest. For any workload that saturates compute units or memory throughput, the K4100M is the data-backed choice.

The K1200 wins where efficiency and modern features matter. Its 45 W TDP is less than half the K4100M's 100 W, and it fits a single-slot desktop form factor versus the K4100M's MXM module. It has a higher boost clock (1,033 MHz vs 706 MHz), which helps in latency-sensitive tasks. It supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.175, making it more future-proof for newer API-driven applications. Its four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are a fixed, known quantity, unlike the K4100M's portable-device-dependent outputs. And its average benchmark score (8,265 vs 7,906) and percentile rank (43rd vs 41st) indicate better real-world consistency across a mix of workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K1200 | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

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

| Chip | GM107 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| 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 | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,033 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1,152 |

| TMUs | 32 | 96 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.53 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 33.06 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,057.8 GFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-01-27 | 2013-07-22 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 1,499 USD |