Tesla K20c vs GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti outperforms Tesla K20c by 83% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 306 | 454 |
Place by popularity | 7 | not in top-100 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 6.16 | 1.44 |
Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
GPU code name | N17P-G1 | GK110 |
Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
Release date | 25 October 2016 (7 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (11 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $139 | $3,199 |
Current price | $207 (1.5x MSRP) | $591 (0.2x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1050 Ti has 328% better value for money than Tesla K20c.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 2496 |
CUDA cores | 768 | no data |
Core clock speed | 1291 MHz | 706 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 7,080 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
Texture fill rate | 66.82 | 146.8 |
Floating-point performance | 2,138 gflops | 3,524 gflops |
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 2.0 x16 |
Length | 145 mm | 267 mm |
Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 5 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 320 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 5200 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 208.0 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | no data |
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, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
HDMI | + | no data |
G-SYNC support | + | no data |
Supported Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
VR Ready | + | no data |
Ansel | + | no data |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
CUDA | + | 3.5 |
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 | 51
+88.9%
| 27−30
−88.9%
|
1440p | 30
+87.5%
| 16−18
−87.5%
|
4K | 26
+85.7%
| 14−16
−85.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 48
+100%
|
24−27
−100%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 63
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+105%
|
21−24
−105%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 48
+100%
|
24−27
−100%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 69
+97.1%
|
35−40
−97.1%
|
Hitman 3 | 45−50
+91.7%
|
24−27
−91.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 31
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 52
+92.6%
|
27−30
−92.6%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 39
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+105%
|
21−24
−105%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 45
+87.5%
|
24−27
−87.5%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 64
+113%
|
30−33
−113%
|
Hitman 3 | 45−50
+91.7%
|
24−27
−91.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
Metro Exodus | 26
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 49
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 51
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
Far Cry 5 | 36
+100%
|
18−20
−100%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 41
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+87.5%
|
24−27
−87.5%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
Hitman 3 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
Metro Exodus | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 36
+100%
|
18−20
−100%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 29
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
Hitman 3 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
Metro Exodus | 9
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 18
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 14
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 20
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Ti and Tesla K20c compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Ti is 88.9% faster than Tesla K20c in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Ti is 87.5% faster than Tesla K20c in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Ti is 85.7% faster than Tesla K20c in 4K
Pros & Cons Summary
Performance score | 16.32 | 8.91 |
Recency | 25 October 2016 | 12 November 2012 |
Cost | $139 | $3199 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 5 GB |
Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20c in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a desktop card while Tesla K20c is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.