Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire vs Quadro M1200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M1200 with Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire, including specs and performance data.
HD 6990M Crossfire outperforms M1200 by a moderate 18% 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 | 569 | 520 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.13 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Blackcomb XTX |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 12 July 2011 (14 years ago) |
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 | 2240 |
| Core clock speed | 1093 MHz | 715 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 2x1700 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 43.72 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.399 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 40 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no 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 size | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2x2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs | no data |
| 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 11 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| CUDA | 5.0 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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:
| 900p | 80−85
−23.8%
| 99
+23.8%
|
| Full HD | 30
−260%
| 108
+260%
|
| 4K | 11
−9.1%
| 12−14
+9.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−22.5%
|
45−50
+22.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−20.6%
|
40−45
+20.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−22.5%
|
45−50
+22.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−19.1%
|
55−60
+19.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−21.7%
|
27−30
+21.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−17.9%
|
30−35
+17.9%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−11.1%
|
90−95
+11.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−20.6%
|
40−45
+20.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−22.5%
|
45−50
+22.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−14.6%
|
140−150
+14.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−13.6%
|
65−70
+13.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−19.1%
|
55−60
+19.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−21.7%
|
27−30
+21.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−21.4%
|
30−35
+21.4%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−17.9%
|
30−35
+17.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−11.1%
|
90−95
+11.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−20.6%
|
40−45
+20.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−13.6%
|
65−70
+13.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−17.9%
|
30−35
+17.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−84.6%
|
24−27
+84.6%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−11.1%
|
90−95
+11.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
−19.1%
|
55−60
+19.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−16.7%
|
70−75
+16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−14.3%
|
45−50
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−17.2%
|
100−110
+17.2%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−29.4%
|
21−24
+29.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−22.2%
|
21−24
+22.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−20%
|
45−50
+20%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−21.4%
|
30−35
+21.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
This is how Quadro M1200 and HD 6990M Crossfire compete in popular games:
- HD 6990M Crossfire is 24% faster in 900p
- HD 6990M Crossfire is 260% faster in 1080p
- HD 6990M Crossfire is 9% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M1200 is 17% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6990M Crossfire is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro M1200 performs better in 1 test (2%)
- HD 6990M Crossfire performs better in 65 tests (98%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.69 | 9.10 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 12 July 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Quadro M1200 has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
HD 6990M Crossfire, on the other hand, has a 18.3% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M1200 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire 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.
