Quadro K1200 vs Radeon RX 460 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 460 Mobile with Quadro K1200, including specs and performance data.

RX 460 Mobile
2016
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
9.99
+31.8%

RX 460 Mobile outperforms K1200 by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking454538
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.02
Power efficiency12.6111.69
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameBaffinGM107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date8 August 2016 (8 years ago)28 January 2015 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86 $321.97

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 cores896512
Core clock speed1000 MHz1058 MHz
Boost clock speed1180 MHz1124 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate66.0835.97
Floating-point processing power2.115 TFLOPS1.151 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs5632

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data160 mm
Widthno data1" (2.5 cm)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5128 Bit
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/sUp to 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displaysno data4

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Desktop Managementno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
CUDA-5.0

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 HD35
+45.8%
24−27
−45.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.46
+446%
13.42
−446%
  • RX 460 Mobile has 446% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+40%
30−33
−40%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Fortnite 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
Valorant 90−95
+40%
65−70
−40%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+40%
30−33
−40%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+44%
100−105
−44%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Dota 2 65−70
+36%
50−55
−36%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Fortnite 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+33.3%
27−30
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Valorant 90−95
+40%
65−70
−40%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+40%
30−33
−40%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Dota 2 65−70
+36%
50−55
−36%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Valorant 90−95
+40%
65−70
−40%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+44%
50−55
−44%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+37.1%
35−40
−37.1%
Valorant 100−110
+32.5%
80−85
−32.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Valorant 50−55
+42.9%
35−40
−42.9%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 35−40
+45.8%
24−27
−45.8%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

This is how RX 460 Mobile and Quadro K1200 compete in popular games:

  • RX 460 Mobile is 46% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.99 7.58
Recency 8 August 2016 28 January 2015
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 45 Watt

RX 460 Mobile has a 31.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro K1200, on the other hand, has 22.2% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 460 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 460 Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro K1200 is a 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.


AMD Radeon RX 460 Mobile
Radeon RX 460
NVIDIA Quadro K1200
Quadro K1200

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


2.8 17 votes

Rate Radeon RX 460 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 104 votes

Rate Quadro K1200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 460 Mobile or Quadro K1200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.