Tesla K20m vs Quadro RTX 4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 and Tesla K20m, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 4000 outperforms Tesla K20m by a whopping 246% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 107 | 413 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 36.19 | 0.59 |
| Power efficiency | 17.17 | 3.53 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | GK110 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 November 2018 (6 years ago) | 5 January 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 4000 has 6034% better value for money than Tesla K20m.
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 | 2304 | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | 1005 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 222.5 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.119 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 40 |
| TMUs | 144 | 208 |
| Tensor Cores | 288 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 36 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1625 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 416.0 GB/s | 208.0 GB/s |
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 Connectors | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 3.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.75 | 11.49 |
| Recency | 13 November 2018 | 5 January 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 5 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 225 Watt |
RTX 4000 has a 246% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 40.6% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20m in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
