NVIDIA Quadro K1200 vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA T600 across the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the T600 scores 27,875 against the Quadro K1200's 8,831. That is a 68.3% delta in favor of the T600, meaning the K1200 trails by more than two-thirds in compute workloads. The gap is nearly identical in Geekbench Vulkan: the T600 posts 25,580 while the K1200 manages 7,698, a 69.9% delta. The K1200 does not win either test in the head-to-head comparison; the T600 takes both.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The K1200's average is 8,265, while the T600's average is 7,035. That seems contradictory given the Geekbench results, but the T600's average is pulled down by additional Passmark tests that are not part of the shared comparison. The T600's Passmark G3D score is 6,479, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,402. The K1200 has no Passmark entries in the database, so its average rests entirely on the two Geekbench runs. This means the T600's raw compute capability is far higher, but its broader benchmark profile includes older DirectX tests where it scores low: Passmark DirectX 9 at 114, DirectX 11 at 49, DirectX 10 at 32, and DirectX 12 at 25. Those low scores drag its average down relative to the K1200, which lacks such tests entirely.

The percentile rankings place both cards in similar territory. The K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, while the T600 sits at the 39th. Neither card is a top performer, but the K1200 edges ahead in overall percentile despite losing badly in the head-to-head. The T600's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970 with an average score of 7,157 and a delta of -1.7%, meaning the T600 is 1.7% behind that card. The K1200's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 980 at 8,167, which is 1.2% behind the K1200, and the GTX 950M at 8,135, which is 1.6% behind. The K1200 actually outpaces the GTX 980 in average score, a notable result for a workstation card.

Where Each One Wins

The T600 wins in any workload that stresses raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 27,875 is more than three times the K1200's 8,831, and its Vulkan score of 25,580 is more than three times the K1200's 7,698. This points to clear advantages in GPU-accelerated tasks like rendering, simulation, and compute-heavy CAD operations. The T600 also has higher pixel and texture rates: 42.72 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s, and 53.40 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s. The pixel rate advantage is particularly large, roughly 2.6 times the K1200's fill rate, which benefits viewport performance in 3D applications.

The K1200's wins are less about outright performance and more about consistency in the database. Its average benchmark score of 8,265 exceeds the T600's 7,035, and its 43rd percentile ranking beats the T600's 39th. The K1200 also has a higher base clock at 954 MHz versus the T600's 735 MHz, though the T600's boost clock is much higher at 1,335 MHz versus 1,033 MHz. For workloads that rely on sustained boost behavior, the T600 should pull ahead; for short bursts or older software that does not utilize boost well, the K1200's higher base clock may keep it competitive.

The T600 additionally supports newer API features. It reaches DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K1200 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). The T600 also has a higher FP16 throughput at 3.418 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, whereas the K1200 has no listed FP16 capability. The K1200 does match the T600 in OpenGL at 4.6 and Vulkan at 1.4, so legacy OpenGL workloads will not see a compatibility gap.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The K1200 uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm TSMC process, while the T600 uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process. The transistor counts differ substantially: the K1200 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the T600 has 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly double on the T600: 23.5M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm². This newer process allows the T600 to pack more compute units into a similar physical footprint.

The K1200 features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The T600 increases each of these: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The ROP count doubles, which explains the T600's much higher pixel rate. The T600 also has a wider effective memory configuration: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 10 Gbps effective, yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The K1200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus at 5 Gbps effective, yielding only 80.19 GB/s. So the T600 delivers exactly double the memory bandwidth, a critical factor for texture-heavy scenes and large data sets.

Both cards are single-slot designs with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The T600 has a lower TDP at 40 W versus the K1200's 45 W, despite having more compute resources. The T600 also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K1200 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. This affects data transfer speeds between the GPU and the rest of the system, particularly for workloads that stream geometry or textures from system memory. The display outputs also differ: the K1200 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connections, while the T600 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections. The newer DisplayPort version supports higher resolutions and refresh rates.

The T600's memory clock is listed at 1,250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective, while the K1200's memory clock is 1,253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. The physical clock is nearly identical, but the T600's GDDR6 doubles the data rate per pin. The T600 also supports FP16 compute at 3.418 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which the K1200 does not list at all. This is relevant for machine learning inference and certain scientific workloads that use half-precision arithmetic.

FAQ

Q: Why does the K1200 have a higher average benchmark score than the T600 when it loses both head-to-head tests?

A: The K1200's average of 8,265 is based only on its two Geekbench scores (8,831 OpenCL and 7,698 Vulkan). The T600's average of 7,035 includes additional Passmark tests, several of which score very low, such as DirectX 9 at 114 and DirectX 11 at 49. These low scores pull the T600's average down despite its much higher Geekbench results.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The T600 has double the bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s versus the K1200's 80.19 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the T600 uses GDDR6 at 10 Gbps effective, while the K1200 uses GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective.

Q: Can the K1200 run Vulkan applications?

A: Yes, both cards support Vulkan 1.4. The K1200 also supports OpenGL 4.6, matching the T600. The difference is in DirectX: the K1200 reaches DirectX 12 (11_0), while the T600 reaches DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Is the T600 more power efficient than the K1200?

A: The T600 has a lower TDP at 40 W versus the K1200's 45 W, despite having more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. Both cards require a 200 W suggested PSU and use no external power connectors.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The K1200's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375X with an average score of 8,325, which is 0.7% behind the K1200. The T600's closest rival is the GeForce GTX 680M with an average score of 7,023, which is 0.2% behind the T600. The T600 is 1.7% behind the GeForce GTX 970.

Q: Which card supports newer display connections?

A: The T600 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the K1200 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The 1.4a standard supports higher bandwidth and refresh rates, which matters for modern high-resolution monitors.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA T600 for any compute-heavy or modern workload. Its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are roughly three times the K1200's, its memory bandwidth is double, its pixel rate is 2.6 times higher, and its ROP count is double. The T600 also has a newer architecture on a 12 nm process, more shading units, more TMUs, and a higher boost clock at 1,335 MHz versus 1,033 MHz. For 3D rendering, GPU compute, or any task that uses modern APIs, the T600 is the stronger pick.

The K1200 retains a few niche advantages. Its higher base clock at 954 MHz versus 735 MHz may help in scenarios where boost clocks are not sustained. Its average benchmark score of 8,265 exceeds the T600's 7,035, and its 43rd percentile ranking beats the T600's 39th. The K1200 also has a smaller die at 148 mm² versus 200 mm², which may matter for extremely space-constrained builds, though both cards are single-slot. The K1200's higher percentile suggests it performs more consistently across the limited set of tests in the database.

However, the T600's advantages are overwhelming in raw performance. The 68.3% delta in OpenCL and 69.9% delta in Vulkan are not marginal differences; they represent a generational leap. The T600 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the K1200's 11_0, and it has FP16 capability at 3.418 TFLOPS. The K1200 is end-of-life, as is the T600, but the T600 is six years newer in release date: April 2021 versus January 2015. For a professional workstation, the T600 is the rational choice unless legacy software compatibility or the higher average percentile is the deciding factor.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The process node is 28 nm for the K1200 and 12 nm for the T600. Transistor count is 1,870 million versus 4,700 million, and die size is 148 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density is 12.6M per mm² versus 23.5M per mm². Base clock is 954 MHz versus 735 MHz, while boost clock is 1,033 MHz versus 1,335 MHz. Memory type is GDDR5 versus GDDR6, with effective data rates of 5 Gbps versus 10 Gbps. Memory bandwidth is 80.19 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 512 versus 640, TMUs are 32 versus 40, and ROPs are 16 versus 32. Pixel rate is 16.53 GPixel/s versus 42.72 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 33.06 GTexel/s versus 53.40 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,057.8 GFLOPS versus 1.709 TFLOPS, and FP16 is absent versus 3.418 TFLOPS. TDP is 45 W versus 40 W. Bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support is 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1). The K1200 has listed dimensions of 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height; the T600 has no dimensions listed. Both cards have no power connectors, a 200 W suggested PSU, single-slot width, 4 GB memory, and a 128-bit memory bus.