Quadro K1200 vs GeForce GTX 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 with Quadro K1200, including specs and performance data.
K1200 outperforms GTX 560 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 618 | 600 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.68 | 1.18 |
| Power efficiency | 3.43 | 12.21 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 17 May 2011 (15 years ago) | 28 January 2015 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $321.97 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 560 has 42% better value for money than Quadro K1200.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 336 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1033 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 99 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 45.36 | 33.06 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.089 TFLOPS | 1.0578 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 2 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 160 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | Up to 80 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.1 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 5.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.66 | 7.10 |
| Recency | 17 May 2011 | 28 January 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 45 Watt |
Quadro K1200 has a 7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 233% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 560 and Quadro K1200.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro K1200 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
