Quadro T500 Mobile vs Quadro K1200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K1200 with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T500 Mobile outperforms K1200 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 ranking | 538 | 496 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.80 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.68 | 34.30 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 28 January 2015 (10 years ago) | 2 December 2020 (4 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.
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 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 1058 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 35.97 | 94.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.151 TFLOPS | 3.037 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 56 |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 160 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | 128 Bit | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 80 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no 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 Connectors | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | 7.5 |
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 | 30−35
−20%
| 36
+20%
|
| 1440p | 12−14
−25%
| 15
+25%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−21.4%
| 17
+21.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 10.73 | no data |
| 1440p | 26.83 | no data |
| 4K | 23.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
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%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+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 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K1200 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T500 Mobile is 20% faster in 1080p
- T500 Mobile is 25% faster in 1440p
- T500 Mobile is 21% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 45 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.60 | 7.75 |
| Recency | 28 January 2015 | 2 December 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 18 Watt |
Quadro K1200 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
T500 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 17.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K1200 is a workstation card while Quadro T500 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
