Arc A310 vs Quadro K1200

Place in the ranking	532	370
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.80	no data
Power efficiency	11.71	13.07
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GM107	DG2-128
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	28 January 2015 (10 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$321.97	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	512	768
Core clock speed	1058 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1124 MHz	2000 MHz
Number of transistors	1,870 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	35.97	64.00
Floating-point processing power	1.151 TFLOPS	3.072 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	32
Tensor Cores	no data	96
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	6

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 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	160 mm	no data
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	128 Bit	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 80 GB/s	124.0 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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 Connectors	4x mini-DisplayPort	No outputs
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data

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 compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	5.0	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

Quadro K1200 7.31

Arc A310 13.59
+85.9%

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.

Quadro K1200 2946

Arc A310 5472
+85.7%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

18−21

−111%

38
+111%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

17.89

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	31 +0%	31 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80 +0%	80 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	26 +0%	26 +0%
Dota 2	28 +0%	28 +0%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Fortnite	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65 +0%	65 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	28 +0%	28 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
World of Tanks	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	24 +0%	24 +0%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	54 +0%	54 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
World of Tanks	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Fortnite	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Valorant	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

This is how Quadro K1200 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:

Arc A310 is 111% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.31	13.59
Recency	28 January 2015	12 October 2022
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	75 Watt

Quadro K1200 has 66.7% lower power consumption.

Arc A310, on the other hand, has a 85.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1200 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A310 is a desktop one.

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