Tesla K20c vs GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q with Tesla K20c, including specs and performance data.
1080 Max-Q outperforms K20c by a whopping 196% 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 | 258 | 549 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 12.49 | 2.81 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GK110 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 June 2017 (8 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 2560 | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | 1290 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 234.9 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.516 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 40 |
| TMUs | 160 | 208 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 208 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1280 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1251 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320.3 GB/s | 208.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
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 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 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 | 102
+240%
| 30−35
−240%
|
| 1440p | 66
+214%
| 21−24
−214%
|
| 4K | 50
+213%
| 16−18
−213%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 106.63 |
| 1440p | no data | 152.33 |
| 4K | no data | 199.94 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+213%
|
45−50
−213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 133
+233%
|
40−45
−233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+213%
|
45−50
−213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 95−100
+217%
|
30−33
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+203%
|
30−33
−203%
|
| Fortnite | 188
+213%
|
60−65
−213%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 124
+210%
|
40−45
−210%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+225%
|
24−27
−225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 111
+217%
|
35−40
−217%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+209%
|
55−60
−209%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 121
+203%
|
40−45
−203%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+213%
|
45−50
−213%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+207%
|
85−90
−207%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 106
+203%
|
35−40
−203%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 95−100
+217%
|
30−33
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+197%
|
30−33
−197%
|
| Fortnite | 127
+218%
|
40−45
−218%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+205%
|
40−45
−205%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+225%
|
24−27
−225%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+213%
|
30−33
−213%
|
| Metro Exodus | 64
+205%
|
21−24
−205%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 104
+197%
|
35−40
−197%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 118
+237%
|
35−40
−237%
|
| Valorant | 203
+212%
|
65−70
−212%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 108
+209%
|
35−40
−209%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+240%
|
30−33
−240%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 95−100
+217%
|
30−33
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85
+215%
|
27−30
−215%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 106
+203%
|
35−40
−203%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80
+196%
|
27−30
−196%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+205%
|
21−24
−205%
|
| Valorant | 128
+220%
|
40−45
−220%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 109
+211%
|
35−40
−211%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+220%
|
55−60
−220%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 61
+239%
|
18−20
−239%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+218%
|
55−60
−218%
|
| Valorant | 194
+198%
|
65−70
−198%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 82
+204%
|
27−30
−204%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+211%
|
18−20
−211%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 66
+214%
|
21−24
−214%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 84
+211%
|
27−30
−211%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+233%
|
12−14
−233%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 64
+205%
|
21−24
−205%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 64
+205%
|
21−24
−205%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
| Valorant | 185
+208%
|
60−65
−208%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+200%
|
27−30
−200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+225%
|
8−9
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 34
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
+206%
|
18−20
−206%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27
+200%
|
9−10
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 34
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
This is how GTX 1080 Max-Q and Tesla K20c compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 Max-Q is 240% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Max-Q is 214% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Max-Q is 213% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.41 | 8.24 |
| Recency | 27 June 2017 | 12 November 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 5 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 225 Watt |
GTX 1080 Max-Q has a 196.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20c in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q is a notebook graphics card while Tesla K20c is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
