GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs Tesla K20c
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 750 Ti outperforms Tesla K20c by 13% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 455 | 410 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 21 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.45 | 1.08 |
Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
GPU code name | GK110 | GM107 |
Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
Release date | 12 November 2012 (11 years ago) | 18 February 2014 (10 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $3,199 | $149 |
Current price | $591 (0.2x MSRP) | $357 (2.4x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Tesla K20c has 34% better value for money than GTX 750 Ti.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2496 | 640 |
CUDA cores | no data | 640 |
Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 1020 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 1085 MHz |
Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 1,870 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 60 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 146.8 | 43.40 |
Floating-point performance | 3,524 gflops | 1,389 gflops |
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 | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | 267 mm | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | 4 GB |
Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 5200 MHz | 5.4 GB/s |
Memory bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | 86.4 GB/s |
Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI |
Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
HDMI | no data | + |
HDCP | no data | + |
Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
Blu Ray 3D | no data | + |
3D Gaming | no data | + |
3D Vision | no data | + |
3D Vision Live | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics 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 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GeForce GTX 750 Ti outperforms Tesla K20c by 13% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Tesla K20c outperforms GeForce GTX 750 Ti by 71% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
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 | 40−45
−25%
| 50
+25%
|
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 8.91 | 10.09 |
Recency | 12 November 2012 | 18 February 2014 |
Cost | $3199 | $149 |
Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 4 GB |
Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 60 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 750 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20c in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla K20c is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 750 Ti 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.