Radeon RX 6450M vs Tesla K20c

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
K10 K20c K20m K20s K20X K20Xm K40c K40m K40st K40t K80 K80m
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
6300M 6450M 6500 6500M 6550M 6550S 6600M 6600S 6650M 6650M XT 6700M 6700S 6800M 6800S 6850M XT

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tesla K20c with Radeon RX 6450M, including specs and performance data.

Tesla K20c
2012, $3,199
5 GB GDDR5, 225 Watt
8.24

6450M outperforms K20c by an impressive 92% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Tesla K20c Tesla K20c
RX 6450M RX 6450M

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking556373
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.16no data
Power efficiency2.8224.30
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGK110Navi 24
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date12 November 2012 (13 years ago)4 January 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores2496768
Core clock speed706 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2460 MHz
Number of transistors7,080 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate146.8118.1
Floating-point processing power3.524 TFLOPS3.779 TFLOPS
ROPs4032
TMUs20848
Ray Tracing Coresno data12
L0 Cacheno data192 KB
L1 Cache208 KB256 KB
L2 Cache1280 KB1024 KB
L3 Cacheno data16 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount5 GB4 GB
Memory bus width320 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1300 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth208.0 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA3.5-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 8.24 15.78
Recency 12 November 2012 4 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 5 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 50 Watt

Tesla K20c has a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RX 6450M, on the other hand, has a 92% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 367% more advanced lithography process, and 350% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 6450M is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20c in performance tests.

Be aware that Tesla K20c is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6450M is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Tesla K20c Tesla K20c
vs
Quadro 7000 Quadro 7000
RX 6450M Radeon RX 6450M
vs
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
Tesla K20c Tesla K20c
vs
Tesla C2075 Tesla C2075
Quadro K600 Quadro K600
vs
520 OEM Radeon 520 OEM
Quadro K600 Quadro K600
vs
RTX PRO 6000 PRO 6000
K5000 SYNC Quadro K5000 SYNC
vs
Vanta LT Vanta LT
K5000 SYNC Quadro K5000 SYNC
vs
UHD Graphics 770 Graphics 770
Tesla K20c Tesla K20c
vs
RX 6600M RX 6600M
Tesla K20X Tesla K20X
vs
RX 5770 RX 5770
Tesla K20Xm Tesla K20Xm
vs
ATI FireGL V3100 FireGL V3100
NVS 510 NVS 510
vs
HD Graphics (Skylake) Graphics (Skylake)
NVS 510 NVS 510
vs
ATI X1300 LE Radeon X1300 LE
NVS 510 NVS 510
vs
ATI All-In-Wonder 9200 LE All-In-Wonder 9200 LE

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.4 13 votes

Rate Tesla K20c on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Radeon RX 6450M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Tesla K20c or Radeon RX 6450M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.