Tesla K80 vs Radeon Pro Vega 20
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 20 with Tesla K80, including specs and performance data.
K80 outperforms Pro 20 by a moderate 10% 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 | 447 | 419 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 9.70 | 3.56 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Vega 12 | GK210 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 14 November 2018 (7 years ago) | 17 November 2014 (11 years ago) |
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 | 1280 | 2496 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 815 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1283 MHz | 824 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 7,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 102.6 | 171.4 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.284 TFLOPS | 4.113 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 ×2 |
| TMUs | 80 | 208 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 208 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 1536 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | 4 GB | 12 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 384 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 740 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 189.4 GB/s | 240.6 GB/s ×2 |
| 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 | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.7 |
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 | 61
−6.6%
| 65−70
+6.6%
|
| 4K | 41
−9.8%
| 45−50
+9.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−7.1%
|
75−80
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 74
−8.1%
|
80−85
+8.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−7.1%
|
75−80
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
−9.6%
|
80−85
+9.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−1.9%
|
55−60
+1.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−1.9%
|
110−120
+1.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 63
−3.2%
|
65−70
+3.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−7.1%
|
75−80
+7.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
−6.7%
|
190−200
+6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 85
−5.9%
|
90−95
+5.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
−8.1%
|
40−45
+8.1%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
−9.6%
|
80−85
+9.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−1.9%
|
55−60
+1.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
−6.4%
|
50−55
+6.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
−10%
|
55−60
+10%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−1.9%
|
110−120
+1.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60
−8.3%
|
65−70
+8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 78
−9%
|
85−90
+9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
−8.1%
|
40−45
+8.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−1.9%
|
55−60
+1.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−1.9%
|
110−120
+1.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
−9.6%
|
80−85
+9.6%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
−5.3%
|
100−105
+5.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
−8.4%
|
90−95
+8.4%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−8.3%
|
130−140
+8.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−8.3%
|
65−70
+8.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 41
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how Pro Vega 20 and Tesla K80 compete in popular games:
- Tesla K80 is 7% faster in 1080p
- Tesla K80 is 10% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.53 | 13.81 |
| Recency | 14 November 2018 | 17 November 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 300 Watt |
Pro Vega 20 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
Tesla K80, on the other hand, has a 10% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Tesla K80 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega 20 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 20 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Tesla K80 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.
