NVIDIA Quadro K1200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K1200

• Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 0 month(s) later
• Around 29% higher core clock speed: 1058 MHz vs 823 MHz
• Around 33% higher pipelines: 512 vs 384
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• 3.8x lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 170 Watt
• 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 25% higher memory clock speed: 5000 MHz vs 4008 MHz
• Around 32% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 578 vs 438
• Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.629 vs 2.344
• Around 83% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 117.722 vs 64.308

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti

• Around 47% higher texture fill rate: 52.7 GTexel / s vs 35.97 GTexel / s
• Around 10% better floating-point performance: 1,263.4 gflops vs 1,151 gflops
• Around 4% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3063 vs 2952
• Around 22% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10721 vs 8820
• Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 539.966 vs 466.139
• Around 41% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.841 vs 25.411
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4184 vs 4080
• 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3683 vs 1721
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3333 vs 3288
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4184 vs 4080
• 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3683 vs 1721
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3333 vs 3288

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K1200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	2952 3063
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	578 438
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	8820 10721
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	31.949 31.935
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	466.139 539.966
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.629 2.344
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	25.411 35.841
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	117.722 64.308
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4080 4184
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1721 3683
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3288 3333
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4080 4184
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1721 3683
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3288 3333

Compare specifications (specs)