NVIDIA Quadro K1200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and the NVIDIA Quadro K1200, and the results are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K5000 records a score of 11,418 against the Quadro K1200's 8,831, a margin of 29.3%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further: the K5000 scores 11,169 while the K1200 manages 7,698, a 45.1% advantage. Both tests favor the older, larger card by a substantial margin, and the overall win tally sits at two victories for the K5000 and zero for the K1200.

The Vulkan result is particularly telling. A 45.1% delta in a modern API benchmark suggests the architectural differences between these two cards are not merely cosmetic. The K5000's raw compute resources, 1,536 shading units against 512, and its 256-bit memory bus against a 128-bit bus, translate into measurable performance advantages that persist even in workloads that favor newer instruction sets. The K1200's higher clock speeds, 954 MHz base and 1,033 MHz boost versus the K5000's flat 706 MHz, cannot compensate for the K5000's superior width and parallel throughput.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the K5000 posts an average of 9,637, placing it in the 46th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The K1200 averages 8,265, sitting at the 43rd percentile. The difference in percentile ranking is modest, three points, but the raw score gap of 1,372 points represents a meaningful performance tier separation. The K5000's nearest rivals in the database, the GeForce GTX 960M at 9,645, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653, and the Quadro P4000 at 9,665, all sit within a tight band of 0.1% to 0.3% above it. This places the K5000 in a crowded midfield where small margins separate competitors. The K1200, by contrast, has nearest rivals that include the Radeon R9 M375X at 8,325, which is 0.7% below it, and the GeForce GTX 980 at 8,167, which is 1.2% below it. The K1200 leads its nearest rivals by a slightly larger margin than the K5000 trails its own, but the absolute performance ceiling is lower.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture for compute-heavy tasks. The Quadro K5000 wins decisively in both recorded benchmark categories, and its advantage in Vulkan, 45.1%, is nearly half again as large as its OpenCL lead. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the K5000 offers a 29.3% performance headroom over the K1200. For Vulkan-based workloads, that headroom expands to 45.1%. The practical implication is straightforward: if a software package leverages either of these APIs for rendering, simulation, or data processing, the K5000 delivers measurably faster results.

The K1200, however, has its own domain of superiority, though it is not captured in the benchmark scores. The recorded specifications show the K1200 draws a maximum of 45 W, compared to the K5000's 122 W. It requires no auxiliary power connectors, while the K5000 needs a single 6-pin connector, and it fits a single-slot form factor with a length of 160 mm (6.3 inches) and height of 69 mm (2.7 inches), against the K5000's dual-slot footprint at 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. The K1200 also drives four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, whereas the K5000 provides two DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 connections. For multi-monitor setups that require four digital outputs from a compact, low-power card, the K1200 is the functional choice.

The suggested power supply rating differs as well: the database lists a 300 W unit for the K5000 and a 200 W unit for the K1200. Systems with constrained power budgets or small chassis will find the K1200 far easier to integrate. The K1200's memory clock runs at 1,253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective throughput, while the K5000's memory runs at 1,350 MHz with 5.4 Gbps effective. The K5000 compensates with a 256-bit bus yielding 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the K1200's 128-bit bus at 80.19 GB/s. For bandwidth-bound workloads, the K5000 is the clear victor; for power-bound or space-bound deployments, the K1200 wins by specification.

Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to different NVIDIA architectures, and the database records this explicitly. The Quadro K5000 is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a die size of 294 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K1200 uses the Maxwell architecture, built around the GM107 chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The K5000 has nearly twice the transistor count and roughly double the die area, which explains its substantially larger physical footprint and higher power draw.

The shading resources are starkly different. The K5000 carries 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. The K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K5000's pixel rate is 22.59 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 90.37 GTexel/s, while the K1200 records 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s. The K5000's FP32 throughput is 2.169 TFLOPS, more than double the K1200's 1,057.8 GFLOPS. None of these figures leave the K1200 competitive in raw computational throughput.

Both cards support the same graphics API feature levels in DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but they differ in Vulkan support. The K5000 lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the K1200 lists Vulkan 1.4. The newer Maxwell chip offers a more recent Vulkan API revision, which may matter for developers targeting the latest Vulkan extensions, even though the K5000's higher raw scores in the Vulkan benchmark suggest that the K1200's API advantage does not translate into superior performance.

The memory subsystems diverge considerably. Both cards use 4 GB of GDDR5, but the K5000 operates its memory over a 256-bit bus with a bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s. The K1200 is limited to a 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s. The K5000's memory clock is 1,350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), slightly higher than the K1200's 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The bus width is the dominant factor here, giving the K5000 more than double the memory bandwidth. This matters for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and multi-sample rendering, all common in professional visualization workloads.

Both cards use PCIe 2.0 x16 interfaces and are end-of-life in production status. The K5000 launched in August 2012, while the K1200 launched in January 2015. Both list Quadro Fermi as their predecessor and Quadro Maxwell as their successor, which places them in adjacent generational segments despite their architectural differences.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro K5000. Its FP32 throughput is 2.169 TFLOPS, and it has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 1,057.8 GFLOPS FP32.

Q: How much faster is the K5000 in the recorded benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the K5000 scores 11,418 against 8,831, a 29.3% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the K5000 scores 11,169 against 7,698, a 45.1% advantage.

Q: Does the K1200 have any performance advantage at all?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head benchmarks, and the K1200 loses both. Its win count is zero. It does, however, have a lower power draw of 45 W versus 122 W, and a smaller physical footprint.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The K5000 has a 256-bit memory bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The K1200 has a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. Both use 4 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The K1200 supports four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The K5000 supports two DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, for a total of four outputs as well, but with different connector types.

Q: What is the Vulkan API version difference?

A: The K5000 lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the K1200 lists Vulkan 1.4. Despite the K1200's newer API revision, the K5000 scores 45.1% higher in the Geekbench Vulkan test.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification. The K5000 uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, while the K1200 uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture. Both are 28 nm TSMC parts, but the K5000 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, versus the K1200's 1,870 million on 148 mm². Transistor density is 12.0M per mm² for the K5000 and 12.6M per mm² for the K1200.

Clock speeds differ: the K5000 runs at a flat 706 MHz base and boost, while the K1200 runs at 954 MHz base and 1,033 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1,350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) for the K5000 and 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the K1200. Memory bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit, yielding 172.8 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Shading units are 1,536 versus 512. TMUs are 128 versus 32. ROPs are 32 versus 16. Pixel rates are 22.59 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 90.37 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s. FP32 is 2.169 TFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS.

Power draw is 122 W versus 45 W. The K5000 is dual-slot with a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The K1200 is single-slot with no power connector and a 200 W suggested PSU. Dimensions are 267 mm by 111 mm for the K5000, and 160 mm by 69 mm for the K1200.

Display outputs are 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the K5000, versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the K1200. Vulkan support is 1.2.175 versus 1.4. DirectX and OpenGL support match at 12 (11_0) and 4.6. Release dates are August 2012 for the K5000 and January 2015 for the K1200. The K5000 has a recorded launch MSRP of 2,499 USD. The K1200 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. For users who prioritize compute performance, the Quadro K5000 is the only logical choice. It leads the K1200 by 29.3% in OpenCL and 45.1% in Vulkan, and its FP32 throughput of 2.169 TFLOPS is more than double the K1200's 1,057.8 GFLOPS. Its memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s dwarfs the K1200's 80.19 GB/s, which directly benefits texture-heavy and large-data workloads. The K5000 also holds a higher average benchmark score of 9,637 against 8,265, and a higher percentile ranking of 46 against 43.

For users who care about physical integration, power efficiency, or multi-display output, the K1200 is the better fit. It draws 45 W, requires no power connector, fits a single slot at 160 mm length, and drives four mini-DisplayPort outputs. It also carries the newer Vulkan 1.4 API, which may be relevant for specific software compatibility. The K1200's smaller size and lower power demands make it suitable for compact workstations or systems with limited power delivery.

The benchmark data does not record a single test where the K1200 wins. Every measured metric favors the K5000. The K1200's advantages are entirely in its physical and electrical specifications, not its performance. There is no scenario in the database where the K1200 outperforms the K5000 in a benchmark; there are only scenarios where the K1200 is easier to install or run. Users needing maximum throughput should choose the K5000 without hesitation. Users needing a low-profile, low-power card for basic professional display work may find the K1200 sufficient, but they should expect significantly slower compute performance in every recorded test.