RTX 6000 Ada Generation vs Tesla K20c
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K20c and RTX 6000 Ada Generation, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms Tesla K20c by a whopping 716% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 495 | 18 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.39 | 7.46 |
| Power efficiency | 2.74 | 16.79 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | AD102 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 November 2012 (12 years ago) | 3 December 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,199 | $6,799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation has 1813% 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 | 18176 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 915 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2505 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 146.8 | 1,423 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.524 TFLOPS | 91.06 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 192 |
| TMUs | 208 | 568 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 568 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 142 |
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 | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 16-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 | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1300 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | 960.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 8.9 |
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
−805%
| 190
+805%
|
| 1440p | 18−20
−789%
| 160
+789%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−721%
| 115
+721%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 152.33
−326%
| 35.78
+326%
|
| 1440p | 177.72
−318%
| 42.49
+318%
|
| 4K | 228.50
−286%
| 59.12
+286%
|
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation has 326% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation has 318% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation has 286% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 164
+0%
|
164
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 113
+0%
|
113
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 155
+0%
|
155
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 123
+0%
|
123
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+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 | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 219
+0%
|
219
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
This is how Tesla K20c and RTX 6000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 805% faster in 1080p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 789% faster in 1440p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 721% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.85 | 72.25 |
| Recency | 12 November 2012 | 3 December 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 300 Watt |
Tesla K20c has 33.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 716.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 860% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 6000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20c in performance tests.
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.
