Tesla K20c vs GeForce GTX 980
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 with Tesla K20c, including specs and performance data.
GTX 980 outperforms Tesla K20c by a whopping 223% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 202 | 498 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.81 | 0.39 |
| Power efficiency | 12.02 | 2.73 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GK110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 19 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 980 has 2672% better value for money than Tesla K20c.
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 | 2048 | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 155.6 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.981 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 40 |
| TMUs | 128 | 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 | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | 4 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| 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.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
API and SDK 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 | 1.1.126 | 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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 94
+248%
| 27−30
−248%
|
| 1440p | 51
+264%
| 14−16
−264%
|
| 4K | 39
+225%
| 12−14
−225%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.84
+1929%
| 118.48
−1929%
|
| 1440p | 10.76
+2023%
| 228.50
−2023%
|
| 4K | 14.08
+1794%
| 266.58
−1794%
|
- GTX 980 has 1929% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 980 has 2023% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 980 has 1794% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+262%
|
21−24
−262%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+244%
|
16−18
−244%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+262%
|
21−24
−262%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 109
+263%
|
30−33
−263%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+244%
|
16−18
−244%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80
+233%
|
24−27
−233%
|
| Fortnite | 242
+246%
|
70−75
−246%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
+233%
|
27−30
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+225%
|
24−27
−225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 93
+244%
|
27−30
−244%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+224%
|
55−60
−224%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+262%
|
21−24
−262%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90
+233%
|
27−30
−233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+244%
|
16−18
−244%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+234%
|
80−85
−234%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+269%
|
35−40
−269%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 73
+248%
|
21−24
−248%
|
| Fortnite | 116
+231%
|
35−40
−231%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
+246%
|
24−27
−246%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+225%
|
24−27
−225%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72
+243%
|
21−24
−243%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+239%
|
18−20
−239%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 79
+229%
|
24−27
−229%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85
+254%
|
24−27
−254%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+224%
|
55−60
−224%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 82
+242%
|
24−27
−242%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+244%
|
16−18
−244%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+269%
|
35−40
−269%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
+229%
|
21−24
−229%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+225%
|
24−27
−225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 56
+250%
|
16−18
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+229%
|
14−16
−229%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+224%
|
55−60
−224%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 91
+237%
|
27−30
−237%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+257%
|
7−8
−257%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+242%
|
55−60
−242%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+257%
|
14−16
−257%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+270%
|
10−11
−270%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+250%
|
50−55
−250%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+234%
|
65−70
−234%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 62
+244%
|
18−20
−244%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+250%
|
8−9
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 48
+243%
|
14−16
−243%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 48
+243%
|
14−16
−243%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+243%
|
14−16
−243%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+229%
|
14−16
−229%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 53
+231%
|
16−18
−231%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 59
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+256%
|
45−50
−256%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 32
+256%
|
9−10
−256%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+258%
|
24−27
−258%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+243%
|
7−8
−243%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+225%
|
8−9
−225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25
+257%
|
7−8
−257%
|
This is how GTX 980 and Tesla K20c compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 is 248% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 is 264% faster in 1440p
- GTX 980 is 225% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.24 | 8.75 |
| Recency | 19 September 2014 | 12 November 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 5 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 225 Watt |
GTX 980 has a 222.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 36.4% lower power consumption.
Tesla K20c, on the other hand, has a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 980 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20c in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 is a desktop 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.
