Tesla K20c vs Radeon RX Vega 64
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 64 with Tesla K20c, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 64 outperforms Tesla K20c by a whopping 312% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 133 | 498 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 21.40 | 0.39 |
| Power efficiency | 8.64 | 2.75 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GK110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX Vega 64 has 5387% better value for money than Tesla K20c.
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 | 4096 | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | 1247 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1546 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 395.8 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.66 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 40 |
| TMUs | 256 | 208 |
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 | 279 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 945 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 483.8 GB/s | 208.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.5 |
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 HD | 118
+337%
| 27−30
−337%
|
| 1440p | 80
+344%
| 18−20
−344%
|
| 4K | 52
+333%
| 12−14
−333%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.23
+2702%
| 118.48
−2702%
|
| 1440p | 6.24
+2749%
| 177.72
−2749%
|
| 4K | 9.60
+2678%
| 266.58
−2678%
|
- RX Vega 64 has 2702% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX Vega 64 has 2749% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX Vega 64 has 2678% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+333%
|
18−20
−333%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 82
+356%
|
18−20
−356%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 202
+349%
|
45−50
−349%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+352%
|
21−24
−352%
|
| Metro Exodus | 105
+338%
|
24−27
−338%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 116
+330%
|
27−30
−330%
|
| Valorant | 182
+355%
|
40−45
−355%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 174
+335%
|
40−45
−335%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 50
+317%
|
12−14
−317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
+343%
|
14−16
−343%
|
| Fortnite | 123
+356%
|
27−30
−356%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 164
+369%
|
35−40
−369%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+352%
|
21−24
−352%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+333%
|
27−30
−333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 79
+339%
|
18−20
−339%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+336%
|
45−50
−336%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 57
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+330%
|
30−33
−330%
|
| Valorant | 92
+338%
|
21−24
−338%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+329%
|
65−70
−329%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 72
+350%
|
16−18
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Dota 2 | 138
+360%
|
30−33
−360%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+352%
|
21−24
−352%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 143
+377%
|
30−33
−377%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+352%
|
21−24
−352%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+336%
|
45−50
−336%
|
| Valorant | 140
+367%
|
30−33
−367%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+325%
|
16−18
−325%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+325%
|
16−18
−325%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+338%
|
40−45
−338%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 37
+363%
|
8−9
−363%
|
| World of Tanks | 230−240
+327%
|
55−60
−327%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+331%
|
16−18
−331%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+341%
|
27−30
−341%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100
+317%
|
24−27
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+336%
|
14−16
−336%
|
| Metro Exodus | 79
+339%
|
18−20
−339%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+350%
|
14−16
−350%
|
| Valorant | 95
+352%
|
21−24
−352%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+360%
|
10−11
−360%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+337%
|
27−30
−337%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+370%
|
10−11
−370%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+357%
|
21−24
−357%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+350%
|
12−14
−350%
|
| Fortnite | 50
+317%
|
12−14
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+321%
|
14−16
−321%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| Valorant | 49
+390%
|
10−11
−390%
|
This is how RX Vega 64 and Tesla K20c compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 64 is 337% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 64 is 344% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 64 is 333% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 35.87 | 8.70 |
| Recency | 7 August 2017 | 12 November 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 5 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 225 Watt |
RX Vega 64 has a 312.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Tesla K20c, on the other hand, has 31.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20c in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 64 is a desktop card while Tesla K20c is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
