NVIDIA Quadro K1200 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a clear, if modest, victory for the NVIDIA Tesla C2070. The Tesla C2070 scores 9,716 points, while the Quadro K1200 scores 8,831. That is a 10% advantage for the older Fermi-based card, a meaningful gap in raw compute throughput for OpenCL workloads.

Placing these scores in context, the Tesla C2070 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla M10, which averages 9,724 points, a delta of -0.1%, meaning the C2070 trails that card by a hair. It is also within 0.5% of the Quadro P4000 (9,665) and 0.7% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653). Against the GeForce GTX 1070, the C2070 is 0.7% behind, with the GTX 1070 scoring 9,780. The data shows that the C2070, despite its age, lands squarely in a competitive cluster of modern workstation and consumer cards.

The Quadro K1200, by contrast, sits at the 43rd percentile. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 8,265, which is dragged down by a weaker Vulkan result. In OpenCL, the K1200 scores 8,831; in Vulkan, it manages only 7,698. The Vulkan score is not directly comparable to the C2070, since the Tesla card has no recorded Vulkan benchmark, but it does indicate that the K1200's compute performance is not uniform across APIs. The K1200's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (average 8,325, delta -0.7%), the GeForce GTX 980 (8,167, delta 1.2%), the GeForce GTX 950M (8,135, delta 1.6%), and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8,129, delta 1.7%). This means the K1200's average score is slightly above the GTX 980, a desktop flagship from a similar era, though the comparison is skewed by the K1200's dual benchmark results.

The head-to-head comparison yields exactly one win for the Tesla C2070 and zero for the Quadro K1200. The margin is not enormous, but it is consistent with the architectural differences between the two cards. The C2070's higher memory bandwidth and wider bus appear to give it a decisive edge in OpenCL compute tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and different design philosophies. The Tesla C2070 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a die size of 529 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K1200 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The K1200 is clearly the more modern and efficient design, with more than double the transistor density.

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 79% bandwidth advantage for the C2070, which likely explains its OpenCL win despite having fewer shading units. The C2070's memory clock is 747 MHz, with an effective data rate of 3 Gbps. The K1200's memory runs at 1,253 MHz, with 5 Gbps effective, but the narrower bus limits the overall throughput.

Compute resources also differ in configuration. The C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite the K1200 having more shading units, the C2070's higher pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s vs. 16.53 GPixel/s) is actually slightly lower, while its texture rate (32.14 GTexel/s) is just below the K1200's 33.06 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is close: the C2070 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS, while the K1200 delivers 1,057.8 GFLOPS. So in raw ALU throughput, the K1200 is slightly ahead, but the C2070 wins the OpenCL benchmark thanks to memory bandwidth and possibly driver maturity.

Power and physical design are where the cards diverge most sharply. The C2070 has a TDP of 238 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and needs both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 550 W. The K1200 sips power at 45 W, is a single-slot card, requires no external power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of only 200 W. The C2070 is 248 mm long (9.8 inches), while the K1200 is 160 mm long (6.3 inches) and 69 mm tall (2.7 inches). The C2070 has a single DVI output, while the K1200 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the K1200 lists Vulkan support, at version 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla C2070 wins where raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth matter most. Its OpenCL score of 9,716 is 10% higher than the K1200's, and its 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth is nearly double the K1200's 80.19 GB/s. That makes the C2070 the better choice for large dataset processing, scientific simulation, or any workload that streams significant amounts of data through the GPU. The 6 GB frame buffer also gives it more headroom for holding large working sets in memory, a clear advantage for compute tasks that exceed 4 GB. The C2070's percentile rank of 47 places it in the upper half of all GPUs in the database, and its nearest rival cluster includes the Tesla M10 and Quadro P4000, both of which are more recent professional cards.

The Quadro K1200 wins on efficiency and practicality. Its 45 W TDP means it can run in systems with a 200 W power supply, it requires no auxiliary power connectors, and it fits in a single slot. That makes it suitable for compact workstations, silent builds, or multi-GPU configurations where power and space are constrained. The K1200's four mini-DisplayPort outputs are also a clear advantage for multi-monitor setups, as the C2070 offers only a single DVI port. While the K1200's Vulkan score of 7,698 is lower than its OpenCL score, the presence of Vulkan support at all is a feature the C2070 lacks entirely. For users running modern Vulkan-based compute or rendering applications, the K1200 is the only option of the two.

In terms of raw compute, the K1200's FP32 output of 1,057.8 GFLOPS is actually 2.9% higher than the C2070's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. Yet the benchmark data shows the C2070 winning by 10%, which suggests that memory bandwidth is the limiting factor for the K1200 in OpenCL. The K1200's texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s is also slightly higher than the C2070's 32.14 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 16.53 GPixel/s edges out the C2070's 16.07 GPixel/s. So in fill-rate-bound tasks, the K1200 might actually perform competitively, despite losing the OpenCL benchmark.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple split. The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 is the stronger compute card, winning the only head-to-head benchmark by 10%. Its 6 GB memory capacity, 384-bit bus, and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth make it the better choice for large-scale OpenCL workloads, scientific computing, or any task that benefits from high memory throughput. Its 47th percentile ranking and proximity to the Tesla M10 and Quadro P4000 in average score indicate that it remains relevant even against newer professional hardware.

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is the better workstation card for everyday use. Its 45 W TDP, single-slot design, no external power connectors, and four display outputs make it far more practical for a desktop workstation. While its OpenCL score is 10% lower, its FP32 output is slightly higher, and its Vulkan support adds a modern API capability the C2070 lacks. For users who need multiple monitors, low power draw, or a compact card, the K1200 is the obvious pick. For users who need maximum compute throughput and have the power budget and chassis space to accommodate a 238 W dual-slot card, the C2070 is the data-backed choice.

Neither card is current, and both are end-of-life. But within the scope of the recorded benchmarks, the C2070 wins on performance, while the K1200 wins on efficiency and features.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716, which is 10% higher than the Quadro K1200's 8,831.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The Tesla C2070 delivers 143.4 GB/s over a 384-bit bus, while the Quadro K1200 offers 80.19 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the Quadro K1200 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the K1200 lists Vulkan support at version 1.4, while the Tesla C2070 has no recorded Vulkan support.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W and requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, plus a 550 W power supply. The Quadro K1200 has a 45 W TDP, needs no external power connectors, and has a 200 W suggested PSU.

Q: How many display outputs does each card have?

A: The Tesla C2070 has a single DVI output, while the Quadro K1200 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, while the Tesla C2070 has 448. However, the C2070 still wins the OpenCL benchmark.