Tesla K20c vs Quadro P2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 and Tesla K20c, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
P2000 outperforms Tesla K20c by a whopping 111% 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 | 312 | 506 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.31 | 0.38 |
| Power efficiency | 17.17 | 2.71 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | GK110 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (8 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Quadro P2000 has 2350% 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 | 1024 | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | 1076 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 94.72 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.031 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 40 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 201 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 160 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 140.2 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 | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
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 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 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 | 56
+133%
| 24−27
−133%
|
| 1440p | 20
+122%
| 9−10
−122%
|
| 4K | 16
+129%
| 7−8
−129%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 10.45
+1176%
| 133.29
−1176%
|
| 1440p | 29.25
+1115%
| 355.44
−1115%
|
| 4K | 36.56
+1150%
| 457.00
−1150%
|
- Quadro P2000 has 1176% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Quadro P2000 has 1115% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Quadro P2000 has 1150% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+124%
|
45−50
−124%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+111%
|
35−40
−111%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+124%
|
45−50
−124%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| Fortnite | 144
+122%
|
65−70
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+143%
|
30−33
−143%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+133%
|
24−27
−133%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53
+121%
|
24−27
−121%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+127%
|
60−65
−127%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+111%
|
35−40
−111%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+124%
|
45−50
−124%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+120%
|
100−105
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+127%
|
45−50
−127%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Fortnite | 60
+122%
|
27−30
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+143%
|
30−33
−143%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+133%
|
24−27
−133%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+123%
|
30−33
−123%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+127%
|
60−65
−127%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+111%
|
35−40
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Dota 2 | 98
+118%
|
45−50
−118%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+143%
|
30−33
−143%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+127%
|
60−65
−127%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+115%
|
60−65
−115%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+120%
|
75−80
−120%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+114%
|
80−85
−114%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+138%
|
21−24
−138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+144%
|
18−20
−144%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+129%
|
14−16
−129%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+120%
|
45−50
−120%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+130%
|
27−30
−130%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
This is how Quadro P2000 and Tesla K20c compete in popular games:
- Quadro P2000 is 133% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P2000 is 122% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P2000 is 129% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.27 | 7.71 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 12 November 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
Quadro P2000 has a 111% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20c in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
