Tesla K20m vs GeForce GTX 1050

Place in the ranking	390	418
Place by popularity	20	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	11.22	0.64
Power efficiency	12.01	3.53
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GP107	GK110
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	25 October 2016 (8 years ago)	5 January 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109	$3,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1050 has 1653% better value for money than Tesla K20m.

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	640	2496
Core clock speed	1290 MHz	706 MHz
Boost clock speed	1392 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,300 million	7,080 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	225 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	97 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	58.20	146.8
Floating-point processing power	1.862 TFLOPS	3.524 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	40
TMUs	40	208

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 2.0 x16
Length	145 mm	267 mm
Height	4.38" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)	300 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI	-	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	5 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	320 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	1300 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112 GB/s	208.0 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	DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	2.2	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream	+	-
GPU Boost	3.0	no data
VR Ready	+	no data
Ansel	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	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.

GTX 1050 13.08
+13.4%

Tesla K20m 11.53

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.

GTX 1050 5030
+13.5%

Tesla K20m 4432

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	42 +20%	35−40 −20%
1440p	21 +16.7%	18−20 −16.7%
4K	23 +27.8%	18−21 −27.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.60 +3422%	91.40 −3422%
1440p	5.19 +3324%	177.72 −3324%
4K	4.74 +3650%	177.72 −3650%

GTX 1050 has 3422% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1050 has 3324% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 1050 has 3650% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	11 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%
Elden Ring	35−40 +30%	30−33 −30%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +22.9%	35−40 −22.9%
Counter-Strike 2	6 +20%	5−6 −20%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +17.8%	45−50 −17.8%
Metro Exodus	41 +17.1%	35−40 −17.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +22.2%	27−30 −22.2%
Valorant	39 +30%	30−33 −30%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	36 +20%	30−33 −20%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +27.8%	18−20 −27.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%
Dota 2	77 +18.5%	65−70 −18.5%
Elden Ring	35−40 +30%	30−33 −30%
Far Cry 5	56 +24.4%	45−50 −24.4%
Fortnite	70−75 +13.8%	65−70 −13.8%
Forza Horizon 4	35 +16.7%	30−33 −16.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	53 +17.8%	45−50 −17.8%
Metro Exodus	26 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 +14.1%	85−90 −14.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +14.3%	35−40 −14.3%
Valorant	50−55 +27.5%	40−45 −27.5%
World of Tanks	250 +13.6%	220−230 −13.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	29 +20.8%	24−27 −20.8%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +27.8%	18−20 −27.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%
Dota 2	112 +17.9%	95−100 −17.9%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +25%	40−45 −25%
Forza Horizon 4	31 +14.8%	27−30 −14.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 +14.1%	85−90 −14.1%
Valorant	28 +16.7%	24−27 −16.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Elden Ring	20−22 +25%	16−18 −25%
Grand Theft Auto V	7 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 +17.5%	80−85 −17.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
World of Tanks	90−95 +15%	80−85 −15%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +25%	24−27 −25%
Forza Horizon 4	18 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%
Metro Exodus	25 +19%	21−24 −19%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Valorant	30−35 +18.5%	27−30 −18.5%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Dota 2	24 +14.3%	21−24 −14.3%
Elden Ring	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	24 +14.3%	21−24 −14.3%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +26.7%	30−33 −26.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24 +14.3%	21−24 −14.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	47 +17.5%	40−45 −17.5%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Fortnite	14−16 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	11 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Valorant	14−16 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%

This is how GTX 1050 and Tesla K20m compete in popular games:

GTX 1050 is 20% faster in 1080p
GTX 1050 is 17% faster in 1440p
GTX 1050 is 28% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	13.08	11.53
Recency	25 October 2016	5 January 2013
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	5 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	225 Watt

GTX 1050 has a 13.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

Tesla K20m, on the other hand, has a 150% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The GeForce GTX 1050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20m in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 is a desktop card while Tesla K20m is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.