Tesla K20m vs Radeon HD 8550G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8550G with Tesla K20m, including specs and performance data.
K20m outperforms HD 8550G by a whopping 975% 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 | 1174 | 485 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.27 |
| Power efficiency | 2.19 | 3.66 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Devastator Lite | GK110 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (13 years ago) | 5 January 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 256 | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | 515 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.52 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3686 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 40 |
| TMUs | 16 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 208.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 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.
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 | 15
−967%
| 160−170
+967%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 19.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−956%
|
95−100
+956%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−868%
|
300−310
+868%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 39
−926%
|
400−450
+926%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−967%
|
160−170
+967%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−956%
|
95−100
+956%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−971%
|
75−80
+971%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−868%
|
300−310
+868%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−967%
|
160−170
+967%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−956%
|
95−100
+956%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−971%
|
75−80
+971%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−868%
|
300−310
+868%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−900%
|
110−120
+900%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−967%
|
160−170
+967%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−971%
|
75−80
+971%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
This is how HD 8550G and Tesla K20m compete in popular games:
- Tesla K20m is 967% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.99 | 10.64 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 5 January 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 225 Watt |
HD 8550G has an age advantage of 4 months, and 543% lower power consumption.
Tesla K20m, on the other hand, has a 975% higher aggregate performance score, and a 14% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla K20m is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8550G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8550G is a notebook 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.
