Tesla K20Xm vs FirePro W5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W5000 and Tesla K20Xm, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Tesla K20Xm outperforms W5000 by a considerable 49% 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 | 569 | 461 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.56 | 0.10 |
| Power efficiency | 7.10 | 3.38 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | GK110 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 August 2012 (12 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $7,699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
FirePro W5000 has 460% better value for money than Tesla K20Xm.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 768 | 2688 |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 235 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.60 | 164.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.267 TFLOPS | 3.935 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 48 | 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 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 183 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Form factor | full height / 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 249.6 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| DisplayPort count | 2 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
API and SDK 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.
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 | 7.03 | 10.47 |
| Recency | 7 August 2012 | 12 November 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 235 Watt |
FirePro W5000 has 213.3% lower power consumption.
Tesla K20Xm, on the other hand, has a 48.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Tesla K20Xm is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W5000 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.
