Tesla K20c vs Radeon R9 280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280 with Tesla K20c, including specs and performance data.
R9 280 outperforms Tesla K20c by an impressive 61% 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 | 400 | 532 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.66 | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 5.04 | 2.78 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GK110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 4 March 2014 (11 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R9 280 has 2813% better value for money than Tesla K20c.
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 | 1792 | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 933 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 104.5 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.344 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 40 |
| TMUs | 112 | 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 | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 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 | 3 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | 208.0 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.5 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.22 | 8.22 |
| Recency | 4 March 2014 | 12 November 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 5 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 225 Watt |
R9 280 has a 60.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 12.5% lower power consumption.
Tesla K20c, on the other hand, has a 66.7% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20c in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop 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.
