GeForce RTX 3070 vs Tesla K20c
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K20c with GeForce RTX 3070, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3070 outperforms Tesla K20c by a whopping 547% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 491 | 42 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 37 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.39 | 58.05 |
| Power efficiency | 2.75 | 18.19 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | GA104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 November 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 September 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,199 | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 3070 has 14785% 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 | 5888 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1725 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 17,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 220 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 146.8 | 317.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.524 TFLOPS | 20.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 96 |
| TMUs | 208 | 184 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 184 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 46 |
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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 242 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 12-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 | 5 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | 448.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| 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 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 8.5 |
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 | 21−24
−614%
| 150
+614%
|
| 1440p | 14−16
−600%
| 98
+600%
|
| 4K | 9−10
−611%
| 64
+611%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 152.33
−4479%
| 3.33
+4479%
|
| 1440p | 228.50
−4388%
| 5.09
+4388%
|
| 4K | 355.44
−4459%
| 7.80
+4459%
|
- RTX 3070 has 4479% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 3070 has 4388% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 3070 has 4459% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 149
+0%
|
149
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 124
+0%
|
124
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 311
+0%
|
311
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 124
+0%
|
124
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Valorant | 246
+0%
|
246
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 137
+0%
|
137
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 256
+0%
|
256
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 159
+0%
|
159
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 223
+0%
|
223
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 237
+0%
|
237
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 101
+0%
|
101
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Valorant | 208
+0%
|
208
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Valorant | 116
+0%
|
116
+0%
|
This is how Tesla K20c and RTX 3070 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3070 is 614% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3070 is 600% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3070 is 611% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.97 | 58.06 |
| Recency | 12 November 2012 | 1 September 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 220 Watt |
RTX 3070 has a 547.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 2.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3070 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 RTX 3070 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
