GeForce GTX 560M SLI vs Quadro K1200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K1200 with GeForce GTX 560M SLI, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K1200
2015, $322
4 GB 128-bit, 45 Watt
7.08
+17.4%

K1200 outperforms 560M SLI by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking585631
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.16no data
Power efficiency12.104.64
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM107N12E-GS
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date28 January 2015 (10 years ago)6 January 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$321.97 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores512384
Core clock speed954 MHz775 MHz
Boost clock speed1033 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate33.06no data
Floating-point processing power1.0578 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs32no data
L1 Cache256 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MBno data

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length160 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 type128 BitGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 80 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2no data
Number of simultaneous displays4no 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.

DirectX1211
Shader Model6.7 (5.1)no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL3.0no data
Vulkan1.3-
CUDA5.0-

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.08 6.03
Recency 28 January 2015 6 January 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 100 Watt

Quadro K1200 has a 17.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 122.2% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K1200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1200 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 560M SLI is a notebook one.

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 Quadro K1200
Quadro K1200
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M SLI
GeForce GTX 560M SLI

Other comparisons

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.


4 120 votes

Rate Quadro K1200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 560M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K1200 or GeForce GTX 560M SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.