NVIDIA Quadro K1200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of two cards aimed at different eras of professional work. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins every recorded head-to-head comparison, and by substantial margins. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200, meanwhile, does not win any of the recorded tests. That does not mean the K1200 is without purpose, but its role is defined by constraints rather than raw performance.

The P4000 dominates in compute-heavy workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 36,212 against the K1200’s 8,831, a 310.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens to 442.8%, with the P4000 scoring 41,786 versus 7,698. These are not incremental improvements; they represent a generational leap in shader throughput, memory bandwidth, and API support. The P4000 is the card for users who need serious GPU compute, whether for rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference.

The K1200, by contrast, is a lower-power, smaller-footprint option. Its 45 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for compact workstations where power draw and physical space are limiting factors. It also supports the same OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 APIs as the P4000, so it can handle modern graphics drivers. However, its DirectX support is capped at 12 (11_0), meaning some newer DirectX 12_1 features are unavailable. The K1200 is not a performance king, but it is a functional entry point for basic 3D viewport work or multi-monitor setups that do not demand heavy compute.

In terms of benchmark percentiles, the P4000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the K1200 sits at the 43rd. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: 9,665 for the P4000 versus 8,265 for the K1200. The P4000’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (delta 0.1%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (delta 0.2%), and NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (delta 0.3%), all within a fraction of a percent. The K1200’s rivals, such as the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (delta -0.7%) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (delta 1.6%), are also tightly grouped. This suggests both cards are positioned in crowded performance bands, but the P4000 is in a higher band overall.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The P4000 is overwhelmingly faster. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 36,212 versus 8,831 for the K1200, a 310.1% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, the P4000 scores 41,786 versus 7,698, a 442.8% lead.

Q: Can the K1200 handle modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, but with limitations. It supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, matching the P4000 in those APIs. However, its DirectX support is 12 (11_0), while the P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which adds features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 243.3 GB/s bandwidth. The K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The P4000 also runs its memory at 7.6 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps effective for the K1200.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The K1200 has a 45 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the P4000 has a 105 W TDP and needs a single 6-pin connector. The K1200 also has a lower suggested PSU requirement of 200 W versus 300 W for the P4000.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The P4000 was released in 2017, the K1200 in 2015.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The P4000 has an average benchmark score of 9,665, which is 1,400 points higher than the K1200’s 8,265. The P4000 also holds a 47th percentile rank versus the K1200’s 43rd.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests are recorded for both cards, and the P4000 wins both decisively.

Geekbench OpenCL: The P4000 scores 36,212. The K1200 scores 8,831. That is a 310.1% delta in favor of the P4000. This test measures general-purpose compute across a range of workloads, including image processing and physics simulations. The P4000’s 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs provide more than triple the raw parallelism of the K1200’s 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The memory bandwidth gap is equally stark: 243.3 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s, which directly impacts memory-bound compute tasks.

Geekbench Vulkan: The P4000 scores 41,786. The K1200 scores 7,698. The delta is 442.8%, the largest margin in any recorded test. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that stresses driver efficiency and raw throughput. The P4000’s Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm TSMC process, handles this workload far better than the K1200’s Maxwell architecture on 28 nm. The P4000 also supports Vulkan 1.4, same as the K1200, but the execution resources are on a completely different scale.

There are no tests where the K1200 beats the P4000. The database records 2 wins for the P4000 and 0 for the K1200. That is a clean sweep, but it is worth noting the K1200 has fewer recorded benchmarks overall, so the comparison is limited to these two compute-oriented tests. The K1200’s absence from other test suites (like 3DMark Steel Nomad or Passmark) means its performance in gaming or directX-specific workloads is not directly comparable here.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every core specification.

Process and die: The P4000 uses a 16 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die. The K1200 uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: 22.9M per mm² for the P4000 versus 12.6M per mm² for the K1200.

Clock speeds: The P4000 has a base clock of 1202 MHz and a boost of 1480 MHz. The K1200 runs at 954 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost. The P4000 also runs its memory at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), while the K1200 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory: 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for the P4000, delivering 243.3 GB/s. The K1200 has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s. That is a 3x bandwidth advantage for the P4000.

Compute units: The P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 94.72 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 165.8 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 5.304 TFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS.

Power and physical: The P4000 is 105 W TDP, single-slot, 241 mm long, 111 mm tall, with a 6-pin power connector. The K1200 is 45 W TDP, single-slot, 160 mm long, 69 mm tall, with no power connector. Suggested PSU is 300 W for the P4000, 200 W for the K1200.

Bus and outputs: The P4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, the K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a for the P4000 versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the K1200.

Architecture Differences

The P4000 is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, specifically the GP104 chip. The K1200 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. This is a two-generation jump in GPU design, and it shows in the feature set.

Pascal introduces a finer 16 nm process, which allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency compared to Maxwell’s 28 nm node. The P4000’s transistor count of 7,200 million is nearly four times the K1200’s 1,870 million. That density translates directly into more shading units, more texture units, and more ROPs.

The memory subsystem is also architecturally different. Pascal supports faster GDDR5 signaling, and the P4000’s 256-bit bus is twice as wide as the K1200’s 128-bit bus. The effective memory clock of 7.6 Gbps versus 5 Gbps compounds the bus width advantage, resulting in 243.3 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

API support differs in one key area: DirectX. The P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which includes feature level 12_1 features. The K1200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning it lacks the highest feature level. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so the gap is narrower in those APIs.

The P4000 also has a higher FP16 rate at 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the K1200 has no recorded FP16 performance. This matters for workloads that use half-precision arithmetic, though the ratio indicates the P4000 is not optimized for FP16 compute either.

The K1200’s generation label in the database is “Quadro Kepler (Kx200),” which is a naming anomaly, as its architecture is Maxwell. The P4000 is labeled “Quadro Pascal (Px000).” The predecessor and successor chains also differ: the P4000 follows Quadro Maxwell and precedes Quadro Volta, while the K1200 follows Quadro Fermi and precedes Quadro Maxwell.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the P4000 is the superior card in every measured dimension. It is faster in compute, has more memory, higher bandwidth, newer architecture, and support for DirectX 12_1. The only areas where the K1200 wins are power draw, physical size, and connector requirements.

For users running GPU-accelerated workloads, the P4000 is the obvious choice. Its 310% lead in OpenCL and 442% lead in Vulkan mean rendering, simulation, and compute tasks will complete in a fraction of the time. The 8 GB memory capacity is double the K1200’s 4 GB, which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The 243.3 GB/s bandwidth supports these larger memory pools without bottlenecking.

The K1200 is for constrained environments. Its 45 W TDP and no power connector requirement make it drop-in compatible with systems that lack auxiliary GPU power. Its 160 mm length and 69 mm height fit into compact chassis. For basic viewport display, 2D CAD, or multi-monitor output, it is functional. But its 1,057.8 GFLOPS FP32 performance is only about one-fifth of the P4000’s 5.304 TFLOPS, so any serious compute will expose the gap.

The percentile ranks confirm the positioning: the P4000 sits at 47th percentile of all GPUs, the K1200 at 43rd. That is a modest difference overall, but the head-to-head deltas are massive. The average benchmark scores, 9,665 versus 8,265, reflect a 17% overall advantage for the P4000, which is muted by the K1200’s limited benchmark set.

Choose the P4000 if your work involves compute-heavy tasks and your workstation can supply 105 W and a 6-pin connector. Choose the K1200 if you need a low-power, compact card for basic professional graphics and your system cannot provide auxiliary power. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the K1200 outperforms the P4000.