Quadro K1200 vs GeForce GTX TITAN X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX TITAN X with Quadro K1200, including specs and performance data.

GTX TITAN X
2015
12 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
33.68
+344%

GTX TITAN X outperforms Quadro K1200 by a whopping 344% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking145496
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation15.675.22
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2015−2019)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameGM200GM107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date17 March 2015 (9 years ago)28 January 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 $321.97
Current price$290 (0.3x MSRP)$124 (0.4x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX TITAN X has 200% better value for money than Quadro K1200.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores3072512
CUDA cores3072no data
Core clock speed1000 MHz1058 MHz
Boost clock speed1075 MHz1124 MHz
Number of transistors8,000 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate192 billion/sec35.97
Floating-point performance6,691 gflops1,151 gflops

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 supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length10.5" (26.7 cm)160 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1" (2.5 cm)
Recommended system power (PSU)600 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors6-pin + 8-pinNone
SLI options4xno data

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 typeGDDR5128 Bit
Maximum RAM amount12 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s5000 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.5 GB/sUp to 80 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2mDP mDP mDP mDP
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
Number of simultaneous displaysno data4
HDMI+no data
HDCP+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream+no data
GeForce ShadowPlay+no data
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+no data
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Desktop Managementno data+

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12
Shader Model6.45
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.126+
CUDA+5.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX TITAN X 33.68
+344%
Quadro K1200 7.58

GeForce GTX TITAN X outperforms Quadro K1200 by 344% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX TITAN X 13009
+344%
Quadro K1200 2929

GeForce GTX TITAN X outperforms Quadro K1200 by 344% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GTX TITAN X 40246
+360%
Quadro K1200 8753

GeForce GTX TITAN X outperforms Quadro K1200 by 360% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GTX TITAN X 53345
+580%
Quadro K1200 7840

GeForce GTX TITAN X outperforms Quadro K1200 by 580% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX TITAN X 33524
+269%
Quadro K1200 9073

GeForce GTX TITAN X outperforms Quadro K1200 by 269% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX TITAN X 125
+381%
Quadro K1200 26

GeForce GTX TITAN X outperforms Quadro K1200 by 381% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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 33.68 7.58
Recency 17 March 2015 28 January 2015
Cost $999 $321.97
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 45 Watt

The GeForce GTX TITAN X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1200 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX TITAN X is a desktop card while Quadro K1200 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X
GeForce GTX TITAN X
NVIDIA Quadro K1200
Quadro K1200

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 189 votes

Rate GeForce GTX TITAN X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 87 votes

Rate Quadro K1200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.