NVIDIA Quadro K1200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and NVIDIA Quadro K5000M 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).

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K1200

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 5 month(s) later
• Around 76% higher core clock speed: 1058 MHz vs 601 MHz
• 2.2x lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 100 Watt
• Around 67% higher memory clock speed: 5000 MHz vs 3000 MHz
• Around 6% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2923 vs 2752
• Around 65% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 578 vs 350
• Around 71% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 8709 vs 5107
• Around 29% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 31.949 vs 24.713
• Around 20% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.629 vs 2.189
• Around 71% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 117.722 vs 68.712

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K5000M

• Around 87% higher texture fill rate: 67.31 GTexel / s vs 35.97 GTexel / s
• 2.6x more pipelines: 1344 vs 512
• Around 40% better floating-point performance: 1,615 gflops vs 1,151 gflops
• Around 47% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 685.1 vs 466.139
• Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 28.929 vs 25.411
• Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4825 vs 4080
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3712 vs 1721
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 vs 3288
• Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4825 vs 4080
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3712 vs 1721
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 vs 3288

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K1200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K5000M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	2923 2752
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	578 350
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	8709 5107
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	31.949 24.713
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	466.139 685.1
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.629 2.189
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	25.411 28.929
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	117.722 68.712
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4080 4825
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1721 3712
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3288 3353
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4080 4825
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1721 3712
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3288 3353

Compare specifications (specs)