GeForce GTX 280 vs Tesla K80
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K80 with GeForce GTX 280, including specs and performance data.
Tesla K80 outperforms GTX 280 by a whopping 234% 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 | 467 | 785 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | 2.61 | 0.99 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK210 | GT200 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 November 2014 (10 years ago) | 16 June 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2496 ×2 | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 562 MHz | 602 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 824 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,100 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 236 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 171.4 ×2 | 48.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.113 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 ×2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 208 ×2 | 80 |
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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB ×2 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit ×2 | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1107 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 240.6 GB/s ×2 | 141.7 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 | HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.7 | + |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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 | 10.26 | 3.07 |
| Recency | 17 November 2014 | 16 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 236 Watt |
Tesla K80 has a 234.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 280, on the other hand, has 27.1% lower power consumption.
The Tesla K80 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla K80 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 280 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.
