Tesla K20c vs GeForce GTX 750
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 750 with Tesla K20c, including specs and performance data.
K20c outperforms GTX 750 by a small 5% 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 | 575 | 565 |
| Place by popularity | 74 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.95 | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 11.11 | 2.85 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GK110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 February 2014 (12 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119 | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 750 has 2369% better value for money than Tesla K20c.
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 | 512 | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | 1020 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1085 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 34.72 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.111 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 40 |
| TMUs | 32 | 208 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 208 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5.0 GB/s | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 3 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 7.90 | 8.28 |
| Recency | 18 February 2014 | 12 November 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 5 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 225 Watt |
GTX 750 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 309% lower power consumption.
Tesla K20c, on the other hand, has a 5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 750 and Tesla K20c.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 750 is a desktop graphics card while Tesla K20c 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.
