Tesla K20m vs GeForce GTX 660
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660 with Tesla K20m, including specs and performance data.
Tesla K20m outperforms GTX 660 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 443 | 424 |
| Place by popularity | 77 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.32 | 0.64 |
| Power efficiency | 5.14 | 3.53 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK106 | GK110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 September 2012 (12 years ago) | 5 January 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 660 has 419% 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 | 960 | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1033 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,540 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 82.56 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.981 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 40 |
| TMUs | 80 | 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 | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 192-bit GDDR5 | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.2 GB/s | 208.0 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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.
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 | 47
−6.4%
| 50−55
+6.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.87
+1213%
| 63.98
−1213%
|
- GTX 660 has 1213% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.02 | 11.07 |
| Recency | 6 September 2012 | 5 January 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 5 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 225 Watt |
GTX 660 has 60.7% lower power consumption.
Tesla K20m, on the other hand, has a 10.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 150% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Tesla K20m is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 660 is a desktop card while Tesla K20m 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.
