Quadro GV100 vs Quadro M1200

Place in the ranking	507	52
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	2.82
Power efficiency	12.89	14.23
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Volta (2017−2020)
GPU code name	GM107	GV100
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)	27 March 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$8,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	640	5120
Core clock speed	1093 MHz	1132 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	1627 MHz
Number of transistors	1,870 million	21,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.72	520.6
Floating-point processing power	1.399 TFLOPS	16.66 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	128
TMUs	40	320
Tensor Cores	no data	640

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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 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	GDDR5	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	4096 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	848 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	868.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	No outputs	4x DisplayPort
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
CUDA	5.0	7.0

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro M1200 8.41

Quadro GV100 51.58
+513%

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 M1200 3233

Quadro GV100 19824
+513%

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 M1200 10019

Quadro GV100 144949
+1347%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro M1200 10296

Quadro GV100 180942
+1657%

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	32 −494%	190−200 +494%
4K	11 −491%	65−70 +491%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	47.36
4K	no data	138.45

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −500%	90−95 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −488%	100−105 +488%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −493%	160−170 +493%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −500%	90−95 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −488%	100−105 +488%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −488%	200−210 +488%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 −500%	120−130 +500%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −491%	130−140 +491%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −509%	140−150 +509%
Valorant	30−35 −513%	190−200 +513%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −493%	160−170 +493%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −500%	90−95 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −488%	100−105 +488%
Dota 2	30−33 −500%	180−190 +500%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −511%	220−230 +511%
Fortnite	45−50 −512%	300−310 +512%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −488%	200−210 +488%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 −500%	120−130 +500%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 −500%	180−190 +500%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −491%	130−140 +491%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −497%	400−450 +497%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −509%	140−150 +509%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −477%	150−160 +477%
Valorant	30−35 −513%	190−200 +513%
World of Tanks	120−130 −495%	750−800 +495%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −493%	160−170 +493%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −500%	90−95 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −488%	100−105 +488%
Dota 2	30−33 −500%	180−190 +500%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −511%	220−230 +511%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −488%	200−210 +488%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 −500%	120−130 +500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −497%	400−450 +497%
Valorant	30−35 −513%	190−200 +513%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 −500%	60−65 +500%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 −491%	65−70 +491%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −495%	250−260 +495%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −471%	40−45 +471%
World of Tanks	60−65 −474%	350−400 +474%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −500%	90−95 +500%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −513%	190−200 +513%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −471%	40−45 +471%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −511%	110−120 +511%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −511%	110−120 +511%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −507%	85−90 +507%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −491%	65−70 +491%
Valorant	21−24 −471%	120−130 +471%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Dota 2	18−20 −479%	110−120 +479%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −479%	110−120 +479%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −483%	140−150 +483%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −479%	110−120 +479%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −471%	40−45 +471%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Dota 2	18−20 −479%	110−120 +479%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −500%	60−65 +500%
Fortnite	8−9 −463%	45−50 +463%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −500%	60−65 +500%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Valorant	8−9 −463%	45−50 +463%

This is how Quadro M1200 and Quadro GV100 compete in popular games:

Quadro GV100 is 494% faster in 1080p
Quadro GV100 is 491% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.41	51.58
Recency	11 January 2017	27 March 2018
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	250 Watt

Quadro M1200 has 455.6% lower power consumption.

Quadro GV100, on the other hand, has a 513.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro GV100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M1200 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro GV100 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.