GRID K520 vs Quadro K1200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K1200 and GRID K520, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
K520 outperforms K1200 by a moderate 18% 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 | 587 | 540 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.10 | 0.14 |
| Power efficiency | 12.08 | 2.86 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 28 January 2015 (10 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $321.97 | $3,599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro K1200 has 686% better value for money than GRID K520.
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 | 1536 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1033 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 33.06 | 95.36 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.0578 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 ×2 |
| TMUs | 32 | 128 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 512 KB |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 160 mm | 267 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 80 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s ×2 |
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 | 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 (5.1) | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | 3.0 |
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.
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.
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 | 6.71 | 7.95 |
| Recency | 28 January 2015 | 23 July 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 225 Watt |
Quadro K1200 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 400% lower power consumption.
GRID K520, on the other hand, has a 18.5% higher aggregate performance score.
The GRID K520 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.
