Tesla K20Xm vs HD Graphics 515
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 515 with Tesla K20Xm, including specs and performance data.
K20Xm outperforms HD Graphics 515 by a whopping 593% 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 | 1014 | 477 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | 7.79 | 3.45 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT2 | GK110 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $7,699 |
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 | 192 | 2688 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 235 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 19.20 | 164.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3072 TFLOPS | 3.935 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 48 |
| TMUs | 24 | 224 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 224 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1536 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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 249.6 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | 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 | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 11
−582%
| 75−80
+582%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 102.65 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−550%
|
65−70
+550%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−586%
|
240−250
+586%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20
−550%
|
130−140
+550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 9
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−550%
|
65−70
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−586%
|
240−250
+586%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 8
−588%
|
55−60
+588%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−550%
|
65−70
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−586%
|
240−250
+586%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−550%
|
65−70
+550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−567%
|
100−105
+567%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−579%
|
95−100
+579%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
This is how HD Graphics 515 and Tesla K20Xm compete in popular games:
- Tesla K20Xm is 582% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.52 | 10.53 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 12 November 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 235 Watt |
HD Graphics 515 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1466.7% lower power consumption.
Tesla K20Xm, on the other hand, has a 592.8% higher aggregate performance score.
The Tesla K20Xm is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 515 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 515 is a notebook graphics card while Tesla K20Xm 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.
