Quadro 4000 vs Tesla K20c
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K20c and Quadro 4000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
K20c outperforms 4000 by a whopping 135% 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 | 565 | 786 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 2.85 | 1.92 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) | 2 November 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,199 | $1,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Tesla K20c has 100% better value for money than Quadro 4000.
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 | 2496 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 142 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 146.8 | 15.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.524 TFLOPS | 0.4864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 |
| TMUs | 208 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 208 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1280 KB | 512 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-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 | 5 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1300 MHz | 702 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | 89.86 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
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 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 2.0 |
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 | 8.28 | 3.53 |
| Recency | 12 November 2012 | 2 November 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 142 Watt |
Tesla K20c has a 135% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 150% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 4000, on the other hand, has 58% lower power consumption.
The Tesla K20c is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
