Quadro K1200 vs Radeon Pro W5700
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W5700 and Quadro K1200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro W5700 outperforms K1200 by a whopping 378% 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 | 174 | 604 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.81 | 1.18 |
| Power efficiency | 12.81 | 12.22 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 19 November 2019 (6 years ago) | 28 January 2015 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | $321.97 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro W5700 has 1070% 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 | 2304 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1880 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 270.7 | 33.06 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.0578 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 144 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 160 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR6 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | Up to 80 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 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 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.7 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 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.
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 | 33.92 | 7.10 |
| Recency | 19 November 2019 | 28 January 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 45 Watt |
Pro W5700 has a 378% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro K1200, on the other hand, has 356% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1200 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
