Quadro M2000M vs Quadro K1200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GRID M3-3020 GRID M10-8Q GRID M40 NVS 810 Quadro K620 Quadro K1200 Quadro K2200 Tesla M10
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro K2200M Quadro M600M Quadro M620 Quadro M1000M Quadro M1200 Quadro M2000M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K1200 with Quadro M2000M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K1200
2015
4 GB 128-bit, 45 Watt
6.60

M2000M outperforms K1200 by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Quadro K1200 Quadro K1200
M2000M M2000M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking538500
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.80no data
Power efficiency11.5911.08
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameGM107GM107
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date28 January 2015 (10 years ago)3 December 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$321.97 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

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 cores512640
Core clock speed1058 MHz1029 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHz1098 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate35.9743.92
Floating-point processing power1.151 TFLOPS1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3240

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 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length160 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 80 GB/s80 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+
3D Vision Pro++
Mosaic++
nView Display Managementno data+
nView Desktop Management+no data
Optimusno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.126+
CUDA5.05.0

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.

Quadro K1200 6.60
M2000M 7.71
+16.8%
  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • GeekBench 5 OpenCL
    • GeekBench 5 Vulkan
    • GeekBench 5 CUDA

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
M2000M 3445
+16.8%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro K1200 8824
M2000M 9874
+11.9%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro K1200 7718
M2000M 9564
+23.9%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Quadro K1200 9073
M2000M 10438
+15%

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 HD30−35
−20%
36
+20%
4K9−10
−22.2%
11
+22.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.73no data
4K35.77no data

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Atomic Heart 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Atomic Heart 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30
+0%
30
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+0%
23
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+0%
9
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how Quadro K1200 and M2000M compete in popular games:

  • M2000M is 20% faster in 1080p
  • M2000M is 22% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 6.60 7.71
Recency 28 January 2015 3 December 2015
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 55 Watt

Quadro K1200 has 22.2% lower power consumption.

M2000M, on the other hand, has a 16.8% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 10 months.

The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1200 is a workstation card while Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation 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 Quadro M2000M
Quadro M2000M
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro K1200 Quadro K1200
vs
GRID K260Q GRID K260Q
M2000M Quadro M2000M
vs
Pro 460 Radeon Pro 460
Quadro K1200 Quadro K1200
vs
P102-100 P102 100
RTX 3050 OEM RTX 3050 OEM
vs
Quadro M6000 M6000
Arc A770 Arc A770
vs
Quadro M6000 M6000
RTX 3060 8 GB RTX 3060 8 GB
vs
Quadro M6000 M6000
RTX 4070 Ti RTX 4070 Ti
vs
Quadro M6000 M6000
GTX 960M GTX 960M
vs
Quadro K1200 K1200
K4100M K4100M
vs
Quadro K1200 K1200
M1000M M1000M
vs
Quadro K1200 K1200
K3100M K3100M
vs
Quadro K1200 K1200
K2100M K2100M
vs
Quadro K1200 K1200
GeForce 940MX 940MX
vs
Quadro K1200 K1200

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.1
104 votes

Rate Quadro K1200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7
534 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K1200 or Quadro M2000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.