Tesla K20Xm vs FirePro W2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W2100 and Tesla K20Xm, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Tesla K20Xm outperforms W2100 by a whopping 387% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 849 | 419 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.26 |
| Power efficiency | 6.22 | 3.35 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Oland | GK110 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 August 2014 (10 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $7,699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 2688 |
| Core clock speed | 630 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 680 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 235 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.60 | 164.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4352 TFLOPS | 3.935 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 48 |
| TMUs | 20 | 224 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Form factor | low profile / half length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 249.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| DisplayPort count | 2 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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 | 13
−362%
| 60−65
+362%
|
| 4K | 2
−350%
| 9−10
+350%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 128.32 |
| 4K | no data | 855.44 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−350%
|
45−50
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Elden Ring | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−350%
|
45−50
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−358%
|
55−60
+358%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−350%
|
45−50
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Elden Ring | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−364%
|
65−70
+364%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−358%
|
55−60
+358%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−358%
|
55−60
+358%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−355%
|
100−105
+355%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
| World of Tanks | 40−45
−377%
|
210−220
+377%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−350%
|
45−50
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−364%
|
65−70
+364%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−358%
|
55−60
+358%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−355%
|
100−105
+355%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−369%
|
75−80
+369%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| World of Tanks | 16−18
−369%
|
75−80
+369%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−350%
|
27−30
+350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−338%
|
35−40
+338%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−369%
|
75−80
+369%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−367%
|
70−75
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−367%
|
70−75
+367%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−369%
|
75−80
+369%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
This is how FirePro W2100 and Tesla K20Xm compete in popular games:
- Tesla K20Xm is 362% faster in 1080p
- Tesla K20Xm is 350% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.35 | 11.45 |
| Recency | 12 August 2014 | 12 November 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 235 Watt |
FirePro W2100 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 803.8% lower power consumption.
Tesla K20Xm, on the other hand, has a 387.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Tesla K20Xm is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W2100 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
