NVIDIA Quadro M1200 Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M1200 Mobile and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 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 M1200 Mobile

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 9 month(s) later
• Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 75 Watt
• 2x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 2500 MHz
• Around 29% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 318 vs 246

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M

• Around 8% higher texture fill rate: 47.04 GTexel / s vs 43.72 GTexel / s
• Around 8% better floating-point performance: 1,505 gflops vs 1,399 gflops
• Around 4% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3374 vs 3242
• Around 3% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10948 vs 10582
• Around 3% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 54.294 vs 52.821
• Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.692 vs 3.631
• Around 6% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.794 vs 48.966
• Around 7% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 174.513 vs 163.204
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5264 vs 4941
• Around 40% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 vs 2645
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5264 vs 4941
• Around 40% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 vs 2645

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M1200 Mobile
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3242 3374
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	318 246
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	10582 10948
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	52.821 54.294
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	793.297 795.325
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.631 3.692
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	48.966 51.794
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	163.204 174.513
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4941 5264
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2645 3714
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3359 3358
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4941 5264
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2645 3714
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3359 3358

Compare specifications (specs)