NVIDIA Quadro K1200 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear pattern of dominance for the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M across both benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the M2000M scores 10057, while the Quadro K1200 manages 8831. That represents a 13.9% advantage for the M2000M. The gap widens considerably in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the M2000M posts 9606 against the K1200's 7698, a 24.8% lead. The M2000M wins both head-to-head comparisons, giving it a 2-0 record in direct matchups.

The Vulkan delta is particularly striking. A 24.8% performance gap in a compute-oriented API suggests the M2000M has a meaningful architectural advantage beyond just clock speeds. The OpenCL result, while still favoring the M2000M, shows a smaller margin, which could indicate that the K1200's compute capabilities are relatively closer in that workload, or that the M2000M's extra shading units and texture units are more effectively utilized in Vulkan's threading model.

Looking at the broader database context, the M2000M's average benchmark score sits at 9832, placing it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs. The K1200's average is 8265, which puts it in the 43rd percentile. The difference in percentile ranking is modest, but the raw score gap is substantial. The M2000M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846, a 0.1% difference) and the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803, 0.3% ahead of the M2000M). The K1200, by contrast, is closest to the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8325, 0.7% behind the K1200) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8167, 1.2% behind). These rival clusters suggest the M2000M competes in a higher performance tier than the K1200, even though both are entry-to-midrange professional cards.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10057 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 8831 for the Quadro K1200, a 13.9% advantage for the M2000M.

Q: Is the Vulkan gap larger than the OpenCL gap?

A: Yes. The M2000M leads by 24.8% in Geekbench Vulkan (9606 vs 7698), which is notably wider than the 13.9% OpenCL margin.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding identical 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is also the same at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the thermal design power differences?

A: The M2000M has a 55 W TDP, while the K1200 draws less at 45 W. The K1200 also lists a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the M2000M does not specify one in the database.

Q: Are these cards from the same architecture generation?

A: Both use the GM107 chip on a 28 nm TSMC process with Maxwell architecture, but the database assigns them to different generational labels: the M2000M is under "Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)" while the K1200 is under "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)", despite the identical underlying chip.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The M2000M sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the K1200 is at the 43rd percentile. The M2000M's average benchmark score is 9832 versus 8265 for the K1200.

Architecture Differences

Despite sharing the same GM107 chip, 28 nm process, TSMC foundry, 1,870 million transistors, and 148 mm² die size, the two cards diverge significantly in their compute resources. The M2000M packs 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The K1200 has fewer of both shading units and TMUs: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, but it retains the same 16 ROPs. This means the M2000M has 25% more shading units and 25% more texture units, which directly translates to higher theoretical throughput.

The clock speeds also favor the M2000M. It runs at a base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz. The K1200 operates at 954 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost. The combination of more cores and higher clocks produces a substantial performance advantage. The pixel rate for the M2000M is 18.19 GPixel/s, while the K1200 manages 16.53 GPixel/s. The texture rate gap is larger: 45.48 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s. FP32 compute shows the M2000M at 1,455.4 GFLOPS, compared to 1,057.8 GFLOPS for the K1200, a 37.6% theoretical advantage.

The form factors differ as well. The M2000M uses an MXM module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, designed for portable devices where display outputs are device-dependent. The K1200 is a single-slot PCIe card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The K1200 has physical dimensions of 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The M2000M's dimensions are not recorded in the database.

Power consumption is another differentiator. The M2000M is rated at 55 W TDP, whereas the K1200 draws 45 W. The K1200 also lists a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the M2000M does not have that field populated. Both cards require no external power connectors.

Generation lineage in the database is somewhat inconsistent. The M2000M is classified under "Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)" with a predecessor of "Quadro Kepler-M" and a successor of "Quadro Pascal-M." The K1200 sits under "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" with a predecessor of "Quadro Fermi" and a successor of "Quadro Maxwell." This suggests the M2000M is part of the Maxwell mobile professional lineup, while the K1200, despite using the Maxwell-based GM107 chip, is categorized within the Kepler-era naming scheme.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows several fields where the two cards differ. The M2000M has 640 shading units versus 512 for the K1200. TMUs are 40 versus 32. Clock speeds: the M2000M runs at 1098 MHz base and 1137 MHz boost, while the K1200 runs at 954 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost. Pixel rate is 18.19 GPixel/s for the M2000M and 16.53 GPixel/s for the K1200. Texture rate is 45.48 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,455.4 GFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS.

TDP differs: 55 W for the M2000M, 45 W for the K1200. The slot width is "MXM Module" for the M2000M and "Single-slot" for the K1200. The bus interface is MXM-A (3.0) for the M2000M and PCIe 2.0 x16 for the K1200. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the M2000M and "4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2" for the K1200. The K1200 has a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the M2000M has none listed. The K1200 has recorded dimensions of 160 mm length and 69 mm height; the M2000M has no dimensions recorded. Release dates differ: the M2000M was released on December 2, 2015, while the K1200 came earlier on January 27, 2015.

Fields that are identical include memory size (4 GB), memory type (GDDR5), bus width (128 bit), bandwidth (80.19 GB/s), memory clock (1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective), ROPs (16), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistors (1,870 million), die size (148 mm²), transistor density (12.6M / mm²), power connectors (None), and API support (DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4). Both are marked as end-of-life production status, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M outperforms the Quadro K1200 in every recorded test. The M2000M wins the OpenCL test by 13.9% and the Vulkan test by 24.8%. Its average benchmark score of 9832 exceeds the K1200's 8265 by roughly 19%. The M2000M also holds a higher percentile ranking (47th versus 43rd) among all GPUs in the database.

For users choosing between these two, the M2000M is the stronger performer in raw compute tasks. However, the K1200 has advantages in form factor and power draw. It is a single-slot PCIe card with four mini-DisplayPort outputs, making it easier to integrate into a standard desktop workstation. It also consumes 10 W less power and lists a suggested PSU of 200 W, which could be relevant for systems with limited power headroom.

The M2000M, being an MXM module, is intended for laptops and compact mobile workstations. Its display outputs are dependent on the host device, so it is not a drop-in card for a desktop system. The K1200, with its PCIe interface and fixed display outputs, is the more flexible option for a stationary workstation build.

The K1200's generation label is "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" despite using the Maxwell GM107 chip, which might cause confusion for buyers expecting Kepler-era performance. The M2000M's Maxwell-M label aligns more clearly with its architecture. Both cards are end-of-life, so availability will depend on remaining stock or used markets.

Where Each One Wins

The M2000M wins decisively in performance. It takes the OpenCL test with a 13.9% lead and the Vulkan test with a 24.8% lead. Its higher shading unit count, TMU count, and clock speeds translate to better compute throughput in both APIs. The M2000M also has a higher pixel rate and texture rate, which benefits graphics-intensive workloads that rely on fill rates. For users who prioritize maximum compute performance in a mobile workstation, the M2000M is the clear choice.

The K1200 wins in deployment flexibility. It is a single-slot PCIe card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, meaning it can be installed in a standard desktop chassis with no special power connectors. Its 45 W TDP and 200 W suggested PSU make it suitable for lower-power systems. The K1200 also has a lower power draw, which could reduce thermal load in compact cases. For users building a small-form-factor workstation or upgrading an existing desktop, the K1200 offers easier integration.

Neither card has a launch MSRP recorded, so the database does not provide pricing guidance. The M2000M's MXM form factor limits its use to compatible laptops, while the K1200's PCIe form factor is more universal. The K1200's earlier release date (January 2015 versus December 2015) might also matter for legacy system compatibility. In the end, the M2000M is the performance pick, and the K1200 is the practical pick for desktop use cases.