Quadro RTX 5000 vs Tesla K20m
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K20m and Quadro RTX 5000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 5000 outperforms K20m by a whopping 246% 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 | 484 | 147 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.27 | 4.43 |
| Power efficiency | 3.66 | 12.37 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 January 2013 (13 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,199 | $2,299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 5000 has 1541% better value for money than Tesla K20m.
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 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1815 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 146.8 | 348.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.524 TFLOPS | 11.15 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 64 |
| TMUs | 208 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 208 KB | 3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1280 KB | 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | 448.0 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.64 | 36.77 |
| Recency | 5 January 2013 | 13 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 230 Watt |
Tesla K20m has 2% lower power consumption.
RTX 5000, on the other hand, has a 246% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 220% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20m 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.
