NVIDIA Quadro K1200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and NVIDIA Quadro P5000 represent two very different generations of professional workstation graphics. The K1200 is a compact, low-power Maxwell-based card from 2015, while the P5000 is a large Pascal-based flagship from 2016. The benchmark data shows a fascinating split: the P5000 dominates in raw compute, yet the older K1200 actually wins the Vulkan test. This breakdown examines the architecture, specifications, and benchmark results to determine which card suits which workload.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has a higher average benchmark score of 8265, compared to the P5000’s 8039. Despite this, the P5000’s OpenCL score is nearly 6 times higher, indicating the average is skewed by the P5000’s lower Vulkan result.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P5000 scores 52509 against the K1200’s 8831, a delta of -83.2% from the P5000’s perspective. This means the P5000 delivers roughly 5.9 times the OpenCL compute performance of the K1200.

Q: Does the K1200 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the K1200 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test. It scores 7698, while the P5000 scores 6342, giving the K1200 a 21.4% advantage in that specific API workload.

Q: How does the memory configuration compare?

A: The P5000 offers 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The P5000 has four times the capacity and over 3.5 times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The K1200 is a single-slot card measuring 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height, requiring no power connectors. The P5000 is a dual-slot card at 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, requiring a single 8-pin power connector.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The P5000’s GP104 chip has a transistor density of 22.9M per mm², while the K1200’s GM107 chip has 12.6M per mm². This reflects the P5000’s more advanced 16 nm process node.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on entirely different architectures and process nodes. The K1200 uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The P5000 uses the GP104 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. This chip packs 7,200 million transistors onto a 314 mm² die, more than tripling the K1200’s transistor count in a larger but denser package.

The shading resources differ massively. The K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The P5000 scales this up to 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This five-fold increase in shader count directly translates to the P5000’s raw compute advantage. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: the K1200 runs at a base of 954 MHz with a boost of 1033 MHz, while the P5000 operates at 1607 MHz base and 1733 MHz boost.

Memory technology is another major divergence. The K1200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit interface, delivering 80.19 GB/s. The P5000 uses 16 GB of GDDR5X with a 256-bit interface, more than tripling bandwidth to 288.5 GB/s. The effective memory clock is 5 Gbps for the K1200 versus 9 Gbps for the P5000.

The feature set differs too. The K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the P5000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The P5000 also includes a 1:64 FP16 ratio at 138.6 GFLOPS, while the K1200 has no FP16 data listed. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 on the K1200 and PCIe 3.0 x16 on the P5000.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on workload type. For raw compute and memory-intensive tasks, the P5000 is the obvious choice. Its OpenCL score of 52509 dwarfs the K1200’s 8831, and its 16 GB GDDR5X frame buffer with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth is essential for large datasets or high-resolution rendering. The P5000’s 8.873 TFLOPS FP32 performance against the K1200’s 1,057.8 GFLOPS makes it suitable for simulation, AI inference, or heavy 3D rendering.

However, the K1200 wins the Vulkan test with a 21.4% margin (7698 vs 6342). This suggests that for Vulkan-based applications or legacy software optimized for Maxwell, the K1200 may provide smoother performance despite its older architecture. The K1200 also has a higher average benchmark score (8265 vs 8039) and a higher percentile ranking (43rd vs 41st), indicating that in mixed workloads, the older card holds its own.

Physical constraints matter. The K1200 is a single-slot, 45 W card with no power connectors, making it ideal for small form factor systems or dense multi-GPU configurations. The P5000 requires dual-slot spacing, a 180 W TDP, and a single 8-pin connector, plus a 450 W suggested PSU. The K1200’s 160 mm length also fits in cases where the P5000’s 267 mm length will not.

The launch MSRP of the P5000 is 2,499 USD. The K1200 has no listed launch MSRP. Pick the P5000 if compute performance and memory capacity are paramount. Pick the K1200 if you need low power, small size, or better Vulkan performance in legacy applications.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node advances from 28 nm on the K1200 to 16 nm on the P5000. Transistor count jumps from 1,870 million to 7,200 million, with die size increasing from 148 mm² to 314 mm². Transistor density improves from 12.6M / mm² to 22.9M / mm².

Clock speeds are substantially higher on the P5000: base clock 1607 MHz versus 954 MHz, boost clock 1733 MHz versus 1033 MHz. Memory clock effective speed is 9 Gbps versus 5 Gbps. Memory capacity quadruples from 4 GB to 16 GB, type changes from GDDR5 to GDDR5X, bus width doubles from 128-bit to 256-bit, and bandwidth increases from 80.19 GB/s to 288.5 GB/s.

Compute resources scale dramatically: shading units go from 512 to 2560, TMUs from 32 to 160, and ROPs from 16 to 64. Pixel rate increases from 16.53 GPixel/s to 110.9 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 33.06 GTexel/s to 277.3 GTexel/s. FP32 performance rises from 1,057.8 GFLOPS to 8.873 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. TDP goes from 45 W to 180 W. Slot width changes from single-slot to dual-slot, power connectors from none to 1x 8-pin, and suggested PSU from 200 W to 450 W. Dimensions grow from 160 mm x 69 mm to 267 mm x 111 mm. Bus interface advances from PCIe 2.0 x16 to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs change from 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 to 1x DVI plus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmarks tell opposing stories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P5000 wins decisively with a score of 52509 against the K1200’s 8831. This is a delta of -83.2% from the P5000’s perspective, meaning the K1200 scores only 16.8% of the P5000’s result. This massive gap reflects the P5000’s 2,560 shading units, higher clocks, and 3.6x memory bandwidth. OpenCL workloads are parallel-heavy, and the P5000’s architecture is built to exploit that parallelism.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the result flips. The K1200 scores 7698, beating the P5000’s 6342 by 21.4%. This is a surprising outcome given the P5000’s superior specifications. The delta suggests that Vulkan driver overhead or memory access patterns favor the K1200’s Maxwell design. While the P5000’s FP32 throughput is over 8 times higher, the Vulkan test may be less compute-bound and more sensitive to latency or driver efficiency.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the P5000’s average score of 8039 is dragged down by its Vulkan result, while its OpenCL score is exceptional. The K1200’s average of 8265 is supported by solid scores in both tests. The P5000’s percentile rank of 41 versus the K1200’s 43 indicates that despite the P5000’s raw power, real-world application support varies widely.

The P5000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (deltaPct 0), GTX 650 Ti (-0.2), GTX 650 Ti Boost (-0.3), and GRID K2 (-0.5). The K1200’s rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (deltaPct -0.7), GTX 980 (1.2), GTX 950M (1.6), and Radeon R9 M360 (1.7). These rival deltas are all within 2%, indicating that both cards sit in a competitive mid-range cluster despite their generational difference.