AMD Radeon 780M vs NVIDIA Tesla K20m Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K20m and AMD Radeon 780M represent two very different eras of GPU design, a dedicated compute accelerator from 2013 and a modern integrated graphics processor. The benchmark data reveals a decisive shift in performance and efficiency, though the comparison is nuanced by their distinct target applications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Radeon 780M in the two shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD part scores 18,602 against the Tesla K20m’s 16,241, a difference of 12.7% in favor of the integrated chip. This is a significant margin for a component that draws a fraction of the power. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Radeon 780M posts 33,683 versus the Tesla’s 21,936. That is a 34.9% advantage, indicating that the newer architecture handles modern graphics APIs with far greater efficiency.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Tesla K20m averages 19,089 across its recorded tests, while the Radeon 780M averages 17,588. Despite the Radeon winning both head-to-head tests, its average is dragged down by a lower score in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where it records 480 points. This shows that while the Radeon excels in compute-oriented OpenCL and Vulkan tasks, it struggles in a demanding DX12 gaming workload. The Tesla’s two-test average places it at the 64th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon sits at the 61st percentile, meaning the Tesla actually ranks slightly higher overall despite losing the direct comparisons.

Looking at the closest rivals, the Tesla K20m’s average score of 19,089 puts it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049) and 0.3% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036). It is also 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19,030) and 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (19,164). This positions the Tesla as a card that still trades blows with modern entry-level discrete GPUs in synthetic compute tests. The Radeon 780M, with its 17,588 average, is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551) and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509). It sits 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639) and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (17,666). These deltas show the integrated Radeon performing in the same league as older mid-range discrete cards, a remarkable feat for an IGP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is vast, reflecting an eleven-year difference in design philosophy. The Tesla K20m uses the GK110 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Radeon 780M, in contrast, uses the Phoenix chip based on RDNA 3.0, built on a much more advanced 4 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 25,390 million transistors but fits them into a far smaller 178 mm² die, achieving a density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. This is not just a shrink; it is a complete redesign that allows for far more logic in a fraction of the space.

The compute resources differ sharply. The Tesla K20m has 2,496 shading units, 208 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The Radeon 780M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having roughly one-third the shading units, the Radeon achieves higher raw throughput. The Tesla’s FP32 performance is 3.524 TFLOPS, while the Radeon hits 8.909 TFLOPS, a 2.5x advantage. The Radeon also supports FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Tesla has no recorded FP16 capability. The Radeon includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Kepler-based Tesla. Clock speeds tell part of the story: the Radeon has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the Tesla’s base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. The Radeon’s pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s is more than double the Tesla’s 36.71 GPixel/s, though the Tesla’s texture rate of 146.8 GTexel/s slightly edges out the Radeon’s 139.2 GTexel/s.

The memory subsystems could not be more different. The Tesla K20m uses 5 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 208.0 GB/s of bandwidth with a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Radeon 780M relies on System Shared memory, meaning its capacity, bus width, and bandwidth are all dependent on the host system’s RAM. This is a fundamental trade-off: dedicated memory provides consistent, high-bandwidth access, while shared memory offers flexibility and lower cost but is subject to system-level bottlenecks.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data points to clear strengths for each card. The AMD Radeon 780M wins in OpenCL and Vulkan, the two tests where they go head-to-head. Its 12.7% lead in OpenCL and 34.9% lead in Vulkan suggest that it is the better choice for general compute workloads and modern API-based applications. The Radeon’s high boost clock and FP32 throughput make it well-suited for tasks that rely on parallel processing and shader math. Its support for FP16 and ray tracing cores adds capabilities that the Tesla simply does not have, making it more versatile for contemporary software that can leverage these features.

The NVIDIA Tesla K20m, despite losing the head-to-head, holds its own in terms of overall percentile ranking. Its 64th percentile versus the Radeon’s 61st indicates that across a broader set of benchmarks, the Tesla still performs competitively. The Tesla’s dedicated 5 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 208.0 GB/s bandwidth is a major advantage for workloads that require large, fast local memory. This makes it potentially more suitable for certain professional compute tasks where memory latency and bandwidth predictability are critical, and where shared system memory could introduce performance variability. The Tesla’s 3.524 TFLOPS of FP32 is lower, but its 208 TMUs give it a higher texture fill rate, which could benefit certain types of rendering tasks.

The Radeon’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480, which is its only recorded loss, reveals a weakness in heavy gaming workloads. The Tesla has no recorded DX12 result, so a direct comparison cannot be made, but the Radeon’s low score suggests that gamers should not expect high-end performance in the most demanding titles. The Radeon’s victory in Vulkan, however, shows it excels in that API, which many modern games and emulators use.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20m has a higher average benchmark score of 19,089 compared to the AMD Radeon 780M’s 17,588.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 780M in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The Radeon 780M scores 33,683 versus the Tesla K20m’s 21,936, which is a 34.9% difference in favor of the AMD part.

Q: Does the Tesla K20m have any advantages in raw specifications?

A: Yes, the Tesla has 2,496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, compared to the Radeon’s 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. It also has a dedicated 5 GB GDDR5 memory pool with a 320-bit bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The Tesla K20m has a TDP of 225 W, while the AMD Radeon 780M has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Does the Radeon 780M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Radeon 780M includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the Tesla K20m has no recorded ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the release date and production status for each?

A: The Tesla K20m was released on 2013-01-04 and is end-of-life, while the Radeon 780M was released on 2024-01-30 and is still active in production.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear verdict for most users: the AMD Radeon 780M is the better all-around performer. It wins both head-to-head tests, offers dramatically higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, includes modern features like ray tracing cores, and does so at a 15 W TDP versus the Tesla’s 225 W. For anyone building a new system or upgrading an existing one, the Radeon 780M is the sensible choice for general compute, modern API support, and energy efficiency. Its 34.9% lead in Vulkan and 12.7% lead in OpenCL are decisive advantages.

However, the Tesla K20m is not without merit for a specific niche. Its higher percentile rank (64th vs 61st) and its dedicated 5 GB GDDR5 memory pool with 208.0 GB/s bandwidth make it a potentially better fit for legacy professional workloads that depend on stable, local memory access and do not leverage modern APIs. Its 0.2% delta against the RTX 4050 Mobile and 0.3% against the RX 6600 show it can still compete with modern entry-level discrete cards in certain compute scenarios. If you have a system with PCIe 2.0 support and need a compute card with high VRAM, the Tesla remains a viable option. For everyone else, the Radeon 780M is the clear winner, offering superior performance, modern features, and a fraction of the power draw.

Specification Differences

Here are the recorded specification differences between the two components:

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla K20m | AMD Radeon 780M |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 25,390 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 178 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 142.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 800 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 2900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 2496 | 768 |

| TMUs | 208 | 48 |

| ROPs | 40 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | Not recorded | 12 |

| FP32 Performance | 3.524 TFLOPS | 8.909 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not recorded | 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 225 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2013-01-04 | 2024-01-30 |