Arc A380 vs Quadro K1200

Place in the ranking	585	383
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.17	38.84
Power efficiency	12.10	15.38
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)	14 June 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$321.97	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

Arc A380 has 3220% better value for money than Quadro K1200.

Performance to price scatter graph

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	1024
Core clock speed	954 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1033 MHz	2050 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	33.06	131.2
Floating-point processing power	1.0578 TFLOPS	4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	32	64
Tensor Cores	no data	128
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	8
L1 Cache	256 KB	no data
L2 Cache	2 MB	4 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 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	160 mm	222 mm
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 8-pin

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	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 80 GB/s	186.0 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-
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	4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data
HDMI	-	+

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 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.7 (5.1)	6.6
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.3	1.3
CUDA	5.0	-
DLSS	-	+

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.

Quadro K1200 7.09

Arc A380 15.02
+112%

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 2965
Samples: 718

Arc A380 6286
+112%

Samples: 505

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

21−24

−124%

47
+124%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

15.33

−384%

3.17
+384%

Arc A380 has 384% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2	183 +0%	183 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	41 +0%	41 +0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	122 +0%	122 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	33 +0%	33 +0%
Escape from Tarkov	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	62 +0%	62 +0%
Fortnite	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	76 +0%	76 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	72 +0%	72 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	57 +0%	57 +0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	29 +0%	29 +0%
Escape from Tarkov	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	57 +0%	57 +0%
Fortnite	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	72 +0%	72 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	64 +0%	64 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	33 +0%	33 +0%
Metro Exodus	40 +0%	40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	66 +0%	66 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	26 +0%	26 +0%
Escape from Tarkov	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	52 +0%	52 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	57 +0%	57 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	34 +0%	34 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite

85−90

+0%

85−90

+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Valorant	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Escape from Tarkov	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite

30−35

+0%

30−35

+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Escape from Tarkov	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

This is how Quadro K1200 and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

Arc A380 is 124% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.09	15.02
Recency	28 January 2015	14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	75 Watt

Quadro K1200 has 66.7% lower power consumption.

Arc A380, on the other hand, has a 111.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A380 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 A380 is a desktop one.