GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs Tesla K20c
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K20c with GeForce GTX 750 Ti, including specs and performance data.
GTX 750 Ti outperforms Tesla K20c by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 498 | 451 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 30 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.40 | 5.00 |
Power efficiency | 2.73 | 11.59 |
Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
GPU code name | GK110 | GM107 |
Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
Release date | 12 November 2012 (12 years ago) | 18 February 2014 (11 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $3,199 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 750 Ti has 1150% 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 | 2496 | 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 processing power | 3.524 TFLOPS | 1.389 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 40 | 16 |
TMUs | 208 | 40 |
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 | 145 mm |
Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
Width | 2-slot | 1-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 | 1300 MHz | 5.4 GB/s |
Memory bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | 86.4 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | - |
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 | - | + |
HDCP | - | + |
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 | - | + |
3D Gaming | - | + |
3D Vision | - | + |
3D Vision Live | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | + |
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.
- Octane Render OctaneBench
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.
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%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | 79.98
−2584%
| 2.98
+2584%
|
- GTX 750 Ti has 2584% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Fortnite | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Atomic Heart | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how Tesla K20c and GTX 750 Ti compete in popular games:
- GTX 750 Ti is 25% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 8.94 | 10.12 |
Recency | 12 November 2012 | 18 February 2014 |
Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 4 GB |
Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 60 Watt |
Tesla K20c has a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 750 Ti, on the other hand, has a 13.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 275% lower power consumption.
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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.