Quadro T1200 Mobile vs Quadro K4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K4000 with Quadro T1200 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T1200 Mobile outperforms K4000 by a whopping 168% 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 | 595 | 334 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.25 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.19 | 73.89 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK106 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 March 2013 (12 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,269 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 768 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 855 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1425 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,540 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 51.84 | 91.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS | 2.918 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
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 | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1404 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 134.8 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 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 | 21−24
−176%
| 58
+176%
|
| 1440p | 12−14
−175%
| 33
+175%
|
| 4K | 30−35
−170%
| 81
+170%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 60.43 | no data |
| 1440p | 105.75 | no data |
| 4K | 42.30 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| God of War | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| God of War | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 114
+0%
|
114
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| God of War | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| God of War | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| God of War | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| God of War | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K4000 and T1200 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T1200 Mobile is 176% faster in 1080p
- T1200 Mobile is 175% faster in 1440p
- T1200 Mobile is 170% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 51 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.50 | 17.45 |
| Recency | 1 March 2013 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 18 Watt |
T1200 Mobile has a 168.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 344.4% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T1200 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K4000 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro T1200 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.
