AMD FirePro W7000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20m Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD FirePro W7000 is the faster card in this pairing, and the benchmark data supports that verdict without ambiguity. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a decisive 9.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a narrower 0.3% edge in Geekbench Vulkan. For compute workloads that lean on OpenCL, the choice is clearly the W7000. For Vulkan-based tasks, the two are effectively tied, with the W7000 still ahead. The NVIDIA Tesla K20m is not without merit—it offers more memory and higher raw throughput specifications—but the measured benchmark results put it behind. The W7000 also holds a slightly better percentile ranking (65th vs 64th across all GPUs) and a higher average benchmark score (19,905 vs 19,089). If the task is OpenCL compute, pick the W7000. If the workload is Vulkan, the difference is negligible, but the W7000 still edges out. The K20m's larger memory pool (5 GB vs 4 GB) could matter for datasets that exceed 4 GB, but in the tests recorded, that advantage did not translate into a single win.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The NVIDIA Tesla K20m uses the GK110 chip on the Kepler architecture, also 28 nm TSMC, but with 7,080 million transistors on a much larger 561 mm² die, giving a lower density of 12.6M per mm². The K20m's die is more than 2.5 times the physical size of the W7000's, and its transistor count is roughly 2.5 times higher as well. That scale difference shows up in the shading resources: the K20m has 2,496 shading units and 208 texture mapping units, versus 1,280 and 80 on the W7000. The K20m also has more ROPs (40 vs 32). However, the W7000 has a higher transistor density, meaning it packs more transistors per square millimeter despite having fewer total resources.

Memory architecture also differs sharply. The W7000 uses a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective), delivering 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The K20m uses a wider 320-bit bus with 5 GB of GDDR5 at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), achieving 208.0 GB/s. The K20m's bandwidth advantage is 35% in raw terms. The bus interface also differs: the W7000 runs PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K20m is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. For display outputs, the W7000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the K20m has no outputs at all—it is a compute-only accelerator. API support shows the W7000 supporting DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the K20m's DirectX 12 (11_0), while both support OpenGL 4.6, and the K20m has a slightly newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170). The W7000 is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 150 W TDP; the K20m is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin and a 225 W TDP. The W7000 is 242 mm long (9.5 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches); the K20m is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W7000 wins in both recorded benchmarks, so its strengths are clear. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 17,808 against the K20m's 16,241, a 9.6% advantage. This is the largest gap in the head-to-head data and suggests the W7000's GCN architecture is better suited to OpenCL compute workloads as measured by this test. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W7000 scores 22,001 versus 21,936, a 0.3% lead. That is essentially a statistical tie, but the W7000 still takes the win. The W7000 also has a higher average benchmark score across all tests (19,905 vs 19,089) and a higher percentile rank (65th vs 64th). For any workload represented by these benchmarks, the W7000 is the winner.

The NVIDIA Tesla K20m, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has specification-level advantages that could matter in scenarios not captured by the benchmarks. It has more memory (5 GB vs 4 GB), higher memory bandwidth (208.0 GB/s vs 153.6 GB/s), more shading units (2,496 vs 1,280), more TMUs (208 vs 80), and more ROPs (40 vs 32). Its FP32 throughput is 3.524 TFLOPS versus the W7000's 2.432 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate is 36.71 GPixel/s and texture rate is 146.8 GTexel/s, both higher than the W7000's 30.40 GPixel/s and 76.00 GTexel/s. These numbers suggest the K20m should be faster in raw compute throughput, yet the benchmarks show otherwise. The K20m's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (average score 19,030, delta 0.3%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (average score 19,164, delta -0.4%), placing it in a similar performance class. The W7000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (average score 19,885, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (average score 19,765, delta 0.7%), showing it sits slightly higher in the performance hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 is faster, scoring 17,808 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the NVIDIA Tesla K20m's 16,241, a 9.6% advantage.

Q: Is the NVIDIA Tesla K20m better for Vulkan?

A: No. The W7000 wins Vulkan as well, scoring 22,001 versus 21,936, a 0.3% margin that is effectively a tie.

Q: Does the Tesla K20m have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The K20m has 208.0 GB/s of bandwidth from a 320-bit bus with 5 GB of GDDR5 at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), compared to the W7000's 153.6 GB/s from a 256-bit bus with 4 GB at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Tesla K20m, with 3.524 TFLOPS, versus the W7000's 2.432 TFLOPS. Despite this, the K20m loses both head-to-head benchmark tests.

Q: Can the Tesla K20m output video?

A: No. It has no display outputs. The W7000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The W7000 has a higher density at 13.2M transistors per mm² (2,800 million on 212 mm²), while the K20m is at 12.6M per mm² (7,080 million on 561 mm²).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant benchmark result is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The AMD FirePro W7000 scores 17,808, beating the NVIDIA Tesla K20m's 16,241 by 9.6%. This is the largest delta between the two cards in any test and constitutes the primary evidence for the W7000's overall performance lead. The K20m's higher FP32 throughput (3.524 vs 2.432 TFLOPS) and greater memory bandwidth (208.0 vs 153.6 GB/s) did not translate into a win here, suggesting that the W7000's GCN 1.0 architecture is more efficient at executing the OpenCL workloads in this benchmark. The W7000's nearest rival in this range is the NVIDIA Tesla K40m with an average score of 19,885 (0.1% delta), while the K20m's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 with an average score of 19,164 (-0.4% delta). The K20m's average benchmark score of 19,089 puts it below the W7000's 19,905, a 4.3% overall gap.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is much closer. The W7000 scores 22,001, and the K20m scores 21,936, a difference of just 0.3% in favor of the W7000. This result indicates that in Vulkan workloads, the two cards are essentially comparable in performance, with the W7000 holding a marginal edge. The K20m's Vulkan API version is slightly newer (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170), but that did not provide any measurable benefit. The W7000's win here, albeit narrow, means it takes both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record in the wins column. The K20m has zero wins in the head-to-head data. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the W7000 sits at the 65th percentile across all GPUs, while the K20m sits at the 64th. The W7000's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D300 (average score 19,637, delta 1.4%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (average score 19,602, delta 1.5%), indicating it performs above both. The K20m's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (average score 19,030, delta 0.3%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (average score 19,036, delta 0.3%), showing it is closely matched with those cards.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The AMD FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip on GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Tesla K20m uses the GK110 chip on Kepler. Both are 28 nm from TSMC, but the W7000 has 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die (13.2M / mm² density), while the K20m has 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die (12.6M / mm²). Memory clocks differ: the W7000 runs at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective), the K20m at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). Memory size is 4 GB for the W7000 versus 5 GB for the K20m, with bus widths of 256 bit and 320 bit respectively. Bandwidth is 153.6 GB/s for the W7000 and 208.0 GB/s for the K20m. Shading units are 1,280 versus 2,496; TMUs are 80 versus 208; ROPs are 32 versus 40. Pixel rate is 30.40 GPixel/s versus 36.71 GPixel/s; texture rate is 76.00 GTexel/s versus 146.8 GTexel/s; FP32 is 2.432 TFLOPS versus 3.524 TFLOPS. TDP is 150 W versus 225 W. Slot width is single-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 450 W versus 550 W. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus none. DirectX support is 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0), OpenGL is 4.6 for both, and Vulkan is 1.2.170 versus 1.2.175. Dimensions: the W7000 is 242 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall; the K20m is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long with no recorded height. Both are end-of-life products. The W7000 launched on 2012-06-12 with a launch MSRP of 899 USD; the K20m launched on 2013-01-04 with a launch MSRP of 3,199 USD. The W7000's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and successor is Radeon Pro Polaris; the K20m's predecessor is Tesla Fermi and successor is Tesla Maxwell.