Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs Tesla K20Xm
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K20Xm with Iris Xe MAX Graphics, including specs and performance data.
K20Xm outperforms MAX Graphics by a whopping 163% 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 | 474 | 728 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.13 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.73 | 13.34 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | DG1 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) | 31 October 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $7,699 | no data |
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 | 2688 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 732 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 235 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 164.0 | 79.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.935 TFLOPS | 2.534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 24 |
| TMUs | 224 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 4 MB |
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 4.0 x4 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
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 | LPDDR4X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1300 MHz | 2133 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 249.6 GB/s | 68.26 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 | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| 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 | 70−75
+159%
| 27
−159%
|
| 1440p | 50−55
+150%
| 20
−150%
|
| 4K | 40−45
+150%
| 16
−150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 109.99 | no data |
| 1440p | 153.98 | no data |
| 4K | 192.48 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how Tesla K20Xm and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:
- Tesla K20Xm is 159% faster in 1080p
- Tesla K20Xm is 150% faster in 1440p
- Tesla K20Xm is 150% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.32 | 4.31 |
| Recency | 12 November 2012 | 31 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 235 Watt | 25 Watt |
Tesla K20Xm has a 163% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Iris Xe MAX Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 840% lower power consumption.
The Tesla K20Xm is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe MAX Graphics in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla K20Xm is a workstation graphics card while Iris Xe MAX Graphics is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
