GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 vs Tesla K8
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K8 with GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448, including specs and performance data.
K8 outperforms 560 Ti 448 by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 515 | 571 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.48 |
| Power efficiency | 6.99 | 2.77 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 September 2014 (11 years ago) | 29 November 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 1536 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 693 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 811 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 210 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 103.8 | 40.99 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.491 TFLOPS | 1.312 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 40 |
| TMUs | 128 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 640 KB |
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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 6-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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1280 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 152.0 GB/s |
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 Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
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 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 2.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.06 | 7.55 |
| Recency | 16 September 2014 | 29 November 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1280 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 210 Watt |
Tesla K8 has a 20% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 540% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 110% lower power consumption.
The Tesla K8 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla K8 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 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.
