Tesla K20m vs GeForce 7950 GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 7950 GT with Tesla K20m, including specs and performance data.
K20m outperforms 7950 GT by a whopping 1182% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1211 | 484 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | 0.27 |
| Power efficiency | 0.99 | 3.66 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | G71 | GK110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 August 2006 (20 years ago) | 5 January 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $114.95 | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Tesla K20m has 575% better value for money than 7950 GT.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | no data | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 278 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.20 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 40 |
| TMUs | 24 | 208 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 208 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1280 KB |
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 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 44.8 GB/s | 208.0 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 0.83 | 10.64 |
| Recency | 6 August 2006 | 5 January 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 5 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 225 Watt |
7950 GT has 246% lower power consumption.
Tesla K20m, on the other hand, has a 1182% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla K20m is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7950 GT in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 7950 GT is a desktop graphics card while Tesla K20m is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
