GRID K260Q vs Tesla K20c
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K20c and GRID K260Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
K20c outperforms K260Q by a moderate 17% 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 | 549 | 589 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | 0.40 |
| Power efficiency | 2.81 | 2.41 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) | 28 June 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,199 | $937 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GRID K260Q has 150% 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 | 2496 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 146.8 | 95.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.524 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 |
| TMUs | 208 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 208 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1280 KB | 512 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 | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | 160.0 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 3.0 |
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 | 8.21 | 7.02 |
| Recency | 12 November 2012 | 28 June 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 2 GB |
Tesla K20c has a 17% higher aggregate performance score, and a 150% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GRID K260Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months.
The Tesla K20c is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K260Q 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.
