Arc A380 vs Quadro K1200

Place in the ranking	535	341
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.95	44.63
Power efficiency	11.66	14.84
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 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$321.97	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Arc A380 has 1413% better value for money than Quadro K1200.

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	1058 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1124 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	35.97	131.2
Floating-point processing power	1.151 TFLOPS	4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	32	64
Tensor Cores	no data	128
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	8

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	1250 MHz	1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 80 GB/s	186.0 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 Connectors	4x mini-DisplayPort	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 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	-
DLSS	-	+

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.

Quadro K1200 7.65

Arc A380 16.23
+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 2949

Arc A380 6252
+112%

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

−133%

49
+133%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

15.33

−404%

3.04
+404%

Arc A380 has 404% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	65 +0%	65 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	47 +0%	47 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	41 +0%	41 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	48 +0%	48 +0%
Battlefield 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	37 +0%	37 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	33 +0%	33 +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	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	32 +0%	32 +0%
Battlefield 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	31 +0%	31 +0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	29 +0%	29 +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	40−45 +0%	40−45 +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 Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27 +0%	27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	26 +0%	26 +0%
Far Cry 5	52 +0%	52 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	57 +0%	57 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +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 Preset

Fortnite

85−90

+0%

85−90

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +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	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
Valorant	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

30−35

+0%

30−35

+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

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

Arc A380 is 133% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.65	16.23
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 112.2% 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.