NVIDIA Quadro K1200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has an average benchmark score of 10043, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8265. The K5100M sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more memory, and what is the bandwidth difference?

A: The K5100M comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s. The K5100M offers roughly 44% more memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the architecture generations for these two cards?

A: The K5100M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, while the K1200 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. Both are built on the same 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Is there a significant difference in power consumption?

A: Yes. The K5100M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot width, while the K1200 is rated at 45 W and is a single-slot card with a suggested PSU of 200 W. Neither card requires external power connectors.

Q: Which GPU wins in the only head-to-head benchmark available?

A: The K5100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11771 versus 8831 for the K1200, a delta of 33.3%. The K5100M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 8315, while the K1200 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7698.

Q: When were these GPUs released, and are they still in production?

A: The K5100M was released on 2013-07-22, and the K1200 was released on 2015-01-27. Both are now listed as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent two successive NVIDIA professional architectures. The K5100M is built on the Kepler design using the GK104 chip, whereas the K1200 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. Both are manufactured by TSMC on the same 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The K5100M is a substantially larger chip. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The K1200, in contrast, packs 1,870 million transistors onto a 148 mm² die, with a slightly higher density of 12.6 million per mm². The K5100M's larger chip is reflected in its much higher compute resources: 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every one of these execution resource counts, the K5100M has exactly four times the K1200's allocation.

Clock behavior also differs. The K5100M runs at a fixed 771 MHz for both base and boost clocks. The K1200 runs at 954 MHz base and boosts to 1033 MHz. Despite the K1200's higher clocks, the K5100M's sheer width of execution resources produces far higher peak rates: the K5100M achieves 24.67 GPixel/s of pixel throughput and 98.69 GTexel/s of texture throughput, while the K1200 delivers 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s respectively. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern: 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 on the K5100M versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS (approximately 1.06 TFLOPS) on the K1200.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The K5100M uses a 256-bit memory bus with 8 GB of GDDR5 at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), yielding 115.2 GB/s. The K1200 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 80.19 GB/s. The K5100M's wider bus gives it a clear bandwidth advantage despite the K1200's faster memory clock.

Form factor and interface differ as well. The K5100M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, designed for portable devices, and its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The K1200 is a single-slot card measuring 160 mm (6.3 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, using a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, and it provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. API support shows a subtle split: both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K5100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175 while the K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the K5100M scores 11771 against the K1200's 8831, giving the K5100M a 33.3% lead. This is a substantial gap, and it aligns with the raw compute specifications: the K5100M has four times the shading units and nearly twice the FP32 throughput.

The K5100M's OpenCL result also places it close to several notable rivals in the database. Its nearest neighbor is the AMD Radeon R9 M375, which scores 10070, a delta of -0.3%, meaning the K5100M trails that card by just 0.3%. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 10013, putting the K5100M 0.3% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M scores 9959, with the K5100M ahead by 0.8%. Finally, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9846, and the K5100M leads it by 2%. These tight margins around the 10000 mark indicate that the K5100M sits right at a performance plateau shared by several mid-range mobile and older professional parts.

The K1200, by contrast, clusters around the 8200 to 8300 range. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375X at 8325, a delta of -0.7% (the K1200 trails by 0.7%). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 scores 8167, putting the K1200 1.2% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M scores 8135, with the K1200 ahead by 1.6%. The AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8129, and the K1200 leads by 1.7%. The K1200's rival set is notably different in character: it includes a flagship desktop gaming GPU from the Maxwell generation (GTX 980), which underscores how much the K1200 punches relative to its modest 45 W power envelope.

The average benchmark scores tell the same story as the head-to-head. The K5100M averages 10043 across all recorded tests, while the K1200 averages 8265. That is a difference of 1778 points, or roughly 21.5% in the K5100M's favor. The K5100M also has an additional benchmark result, Geekbench Metal, scoring 8315, which is not available for the K1200. The K1200 has a Geekbench Vulkan result of 7698, which is not available for the K5100M. These two results are not directly comparable, but they do illustrate that each card has been tested across different API workloads in the database.

Looking at wins, the K5100M takes the only head-to-head test, so it leads 1-0 in direct comparisons. The K1200 has no winning benchmark in this pairing. That said, the K1200's lower power draw and smaller physical footprint are measurable advantages in the specification sheet, even if they do not show up as benchmark wins.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy: the K5100M is the faster GPU in every recorded compute benchmark shared between the two. Its 33.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, its 21.5% lead in average benchmark score, and its higher percentile ranking (48th versus 43rd) all confirm that it is the stronger compute part. Buyers who need maximum graphics throughput in a portable workstation should favor the K5100M. Its 8 GB of memory and 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth also give it a substantial edge for large frame buffers or memory-intensive visualization workloads.

The K1200, however, is not without a rationale for selection. It consumes less than half the power (45 W versus 100 W) and comes in a single-slot, 160 mm form factor with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, making it far easier to integrate into a desktop workstation. It also has a newer architecture (Maxwell versus Kepler) and a higher Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.175), which may matter for specific software stacks. For a workstation that prioritizes low power, small size, and modern API support over raw compute, the K1200 is the logical choice.

The performance gap between the two is large enough that the K5100M is the default recommendation for any compute-bound task. The K1200's closest rivals in the database, such as the GeForce GTX 950M and Radeon R9 M360, sit within 2% of its score, so it is competitive within its own performance class. But against the K5100M, the K1200 simply does not have the execution resources to keep up. The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: pick the K5100M for performance, pick the K1200 for efficiency and form factor.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5100M | NVIDIA Quadro K1200 |

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

| Chip | GK104 | GM107 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | 954 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 771 MHz | 1033 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 512 |

| TMUs | 128 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 24.67 GPixel/s | 16.53 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 98.69 GTexel/s | 33.06 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.369 TFLOPS | 1,057.8 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 45 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 200 W |

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

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

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 160 mm (6.3 inches) length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) height |

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

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Quadro Maxwell |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 11771 | 8831 |

| Additional Benchmark | Geekbench Metal: 8315 | Geekbench Vulkan: 7698 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 10043 | 8265 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 48 | 43 |