GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB vs Tesla K20Xm
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K20Xm with GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 4 GB outperforms Tesla K20Xm by a whopping 133% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 525 | 306 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 32 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | 36.76 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 November 2012 (11 years ago) | 27 January 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $7,699 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 3050 4 GB has 33318% better value for money than Tesla K20Xm.
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 | 2688 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 732 MHz | 1545 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1740 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 235 Watt | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 164.0 | 111.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.935 TFLOPS | 7.127 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 224 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
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 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 242 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 249.6 GB/s | 192.0 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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 8.6 |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.56 | 17.58 |
| Recency | 12 November 2012 | 27 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 235 Watt | 90 Watt |
Tesla K20Xm has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX 3050 4 GB, on the other hand, has a 132.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 161.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20Xm in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla K20Xm is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
