AMD FirePro D500 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20m Comparison

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only head-to-head benchmark available?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20m wins the sole direct comparison, the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 21936 against the AMD FirePro D500's 18533. That is a decisive 18.4% advantage for the Tesla K20m.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Tesla K20m has an average benchmark score of 19089, while the FirePro D500 averages 18533. The Tesla leads by roughly 556 points, which translates to a 3.0% performance gap in its favor.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU among all GPUs?

A: The Tesla K20m sits at the 64th percentile, whereas the FirePro D500 ranks at the 62nd percentile. This indicates that while both are mid-pack performers, the Tesla edges out the AMD card by two percentile points.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Tesla K20m is substantially ahead in raw compute resources, featuring 2496 shading units and 208 TMUs, compared to the FirePro D500's 1536 shading units and 96 TMUs. The Tesla also leads in ROPs with 40 versus 32.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ between the two cards?

A: The Tesla K20m has a larger 5 GB frame buffer but a narrower 320-bit bus, yielding 208.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro D500 has a smaller 3 GB buffer but a wider 384-bit bus, delivering a higher 243.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the pixel and texture fill rates for each GPU?

A: The Tesla K20m achieves a pixel rate of 36.71 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 146.8 GTexel/s. The FirePro D500 is significantly lower, with a pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 69.60 GTexel/s.

# Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The NVIDIA Tesla K20m is built on the GK110 chip, using the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD FirePro D500 employs the Tahiti chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Despite the identical node, the transistor counts diverge sharply: the Tesla packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, while the FirePro contains 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die. The transistor densities are nearly identical at 12.6M per mm² for the Tesla and 12.3M per mm² for the AMD.

The compute architecture differs fundamentally. Kepler relies on a large array of simple cores, while GCN 1.0 uses a more complex unified shader design. This is reflected in the shading unit counts: 2496 for the Tesla versus 1536 for the FirePro. The Tesla also has more texture units (208 vs 96) and more ROPs (40 vs 32), giving it a structural advantage in raw throughput. The FirePro compensates with a wider memory bus and higher bandwidth, but its lower clock rates and fewer execution units limit its peak theoretical performance.

Both cards support comparable API levels. The Tesla lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The difference in DirectX feature levels is minor, with the AMD card supporting a slightly newer version (11_1 vs 11_0). Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies.

The Tesla's memory operates at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the FirePro's memory runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). However, the FirePro's 384-bit bus versus the Tesla's 320-bit bus means the AMD card achieves higher real-world bandwidth: 243.8 GB/s versus 208.0 GB/s. The Tesla's larger 5 GB frame buffer is advantageous for workloads that need to hold large datasets in VRAM, but the smaller 3 GB buffer on the FirePro is paired with a faster memory pipeline.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the NVIDIA Tesla K20m delivers a score of 21936 against the AMD FirePro D500's 18533. The Tesla wins by a delta of 18.4%, which is a substantial margin in a single-threaded API workload. This result aligns with the Tesla's higher shading unit count and theoretical FP32 throughput of 3.524 TFLOPS versus the FirePro's 2.227 TFLOPS. The 58.2% advantage in FP32 compute is partially offset by the FirePro's superior memory bandwidth, but not enough to close the Vulkan gap.

The Tesla's pixel rate of 36.71 GPixel/s and texture rate of 146.8 GTexel/s dwarf the FirePro's corresponding figures of 23.20 GPixel/s and 69.60 GTexel/s. In fill-rate-bound scenarios, the Tesla should maintain a commanding lead. The FirePro's 243.8 GB/s bandwidth might help in memory-heavy workloads, but the benchmark data does not include a test that isolates memory performance.

The average benchmark scores corroborate the head-to-head result. The Tesla K20m averages 19089, while the FirePro D500 averages 18533. The Tesla's nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19049, +0.2%), Radeon RX 6600 (19036, +0.3%), and Quadro K6000 (19030, +0.3%), with the GeForce GTX 780 slightly ahead (19164, -0.4%). The FirePro's nearest rivals are the Radeon RX 560X (18626, -0.5%), Intel Arc A770M (18383, +0.8%), Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18685, -0.8%), and Radeon RX 460 (18373, +0.9%). The Tesla's position relative to its rivals is tightly clustered, while the FirePro sits in a slightly lower performance tier.

The wins count is one for the Tesla and zero for the FirePro. No test in the data shows the AMD card ahead. This is a clean sweep in the available benchmarks, though the limited scope of tests means the FirePro could theoretically win in workloads that favor its memory bandwidth or display capabilities. However, the data as presented offers no such evidence.

# The Verdict

The benchmark data points decisively toward the NVIDIA Tesla K20m for compute performance. Its 18.4% Vulkan lead and higher average score (19089 vs 18533) make it the stronger choice for general GPU compute tasks. The Tesla also offers 5 GB of VRAM versus the FirePro's 3 GB, which is beneficial for larger datasets. The Tesla's higher shading unit count, TMU count, and ROP count provide a structural advantage that shows up in the measured scores.

The AMD FirePro D500 is not without merits. It delivers higher memory bandwidth (243.8 GB/s vs 208.0 GB/s) and supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Tesla is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. The FirePro also has six mini-DisplayPort outputs and one SDI output, whereas the Tesla has no display outputs at all. For users who need to drive multiple monitors or require a display-capable card, the FirePro is the only viable option in this pairing. Its lower transistor count (4,313 million vs 7,080 million) also suggests lower manufacturing complexity, though the TDP is higher at 274 W versus the Tesla's 225 W.

The production status for both cards is end-of-life, and both were released in the same era: the Tesla on January 4, 2013, and the FirePro on January 17, 2014. The Tesla's predecessor is Tesla Fermi, and its successor is Tesla Maxwell. The FirePro's predecessor is FirePro Terascale, and its successor is Radeon Instinct. The Tesla has a launch MSRP of 3,199 USD, while the FirePro has no launch MSRP listed.

For compute-focused workloads, the Tesla K20m is the clear winner. For display-centric tasks or applications that benefit from higher memory bandwidth, the FirePro D500 may be the better fit, but the benchmark data does not support it as a faster GPU. The verdict is straightforward: pick the Tesla for performance, the FirePro only if you need its display outputs or PCIe 3.0 interface.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla K20m | AMD FirePro D500 |

|----------------|-------------------|------------------|

| Chip | GK110 | Tahiti |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Tesla Kepler (Kxx) | FirePro Data Center (Dx00) |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | 243.8 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 2496 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 208 | 96 |

| ROPs | 40 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 36.71 GPixel/s | 23.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 146.8 GTexel/s | 69.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.524 TFLOPS | 2.227 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 225 W | 274 W |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 279 mm (11 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-01-04 | 2014-01-17 |

| Launch MSRP | 3,199 USD | None |

| Predecessor | Tesla Fermi | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Tesla Maxwell | Radeon Instinct |

The specification table highlights the Tesla's advantages in compute resources and the FirePro's advantages in memory bandwidth and connectivity. The Tesla is shorter (267 mm vs 279 mm), lower in TDP (225 W vs 274 W), and requires a smaller PSU (550 W vs 600 W). The FirePro supports a newer PCIe standard and offers robust display output options, which the Tesla completely lacks. These differences inform the practical use cases for each card, even though the benchmark data favors the Tesla in raw performance.