GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K80 and AMD Radeon Pro 460 represent two very different approaches to GPU design from the same era, targeting distinct computing environments. The benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the specifics of each card's architecture and intended use case are crucial for interpretation. The K80, a dual-chip compute monster, and the Pro 460, an integrated-class mobile part, are separated by nearly two years of design philosophy and a wide gap in power allocation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are unambiguous, with the NVIDIA Tesla K80 securing victories in both available tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K80 scores 18,620 points against the Pro 460's 15,284 points. This represents a substantial 21.8% performance advantage for the NVIDIA card. The margin is significant enough to place these cards in different performance tiers, despite the Pro 460's newer architecture.

The gap narrows somewhat in the Vulkan test, but the outcome remains the same. The Tesla K80 delivers a score of 19,111, while the Radeon Pro 460 manages 16,816 points. This translates to a 13.6% lead for the K80. The reduction in the performance gap from 21.8% to 13.6% when moving from OpenCL to Vulkan is telling. It suggests that while the K80 has a raw compute advantage, the Pro 460's newer GCN architecture scales relatively better with modern, lower-level graphics APIs.

In terms of overall average benchmark scores, the Tesla K80 posts an average of 18,866 points across its two recorded benchmarks. The Radeon Pro 460's average is 17,509 points, which includes its Geekbench Metal score of 20,426 points, a test the K80 cannot run due to the lack of Metal support. Even with this additional data point, the Pro 460 trails the K80 by roughly 7.8% in average score.

The K80’s position in the broader GPU landscape is solid, sitting at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. Its average score of 18,866 places it within a tight competitive cluster. It is a mere 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (18,789) and only 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954). This indicates the K80, despite its age and compute-focused design, holds its own against much newer consumer gaming hardware in synthetic benchmarks. It also edges out the AMD Radeon RX 6600 by 0.9%.

The Radeon Pro 460, with a percentile rank of 61, sits slightly lower. Its average score of 17,509 puts it in direct competition with the NVIDIA Tesla K40c, which scores 17,468, a mere 0.2% difference. It is also nearly identical to the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551) and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588). The closest rival, however, is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, which leads the Pro 460 by only 0.7%. This suggests that the Pro 460, despite its low power envelope, achieves performance comparable to much larger and more power-hungry modern cards in these specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K80 is significantly faster. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 21.8% and the Vulkan test by 13.6%, with scores of 18,620 and 19,111 respectively, compared to the Pro 460's 15,284 and 16,816.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 460 have any unique benchmark results?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 460 has a Geekbench Metal score of 20,426. This test is exclusive to Apple's Metal API, which the NVIDIA Tesla K80 does not support, as it has no display outputs and is designed for compute-only tasks.

Q: How does the Tesla K80 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K80's average score of 18,866 is exceptionally close to its competitors. It is 0.4% ahead of the GeForce RTX 2070 (18,789) and 0.5% behind the RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954). It also outperforms the Quadro K6000 and Radeon RX 6600 by 0.9%.

Q: What is a key architectural difference that explains the performance gap?

A: The Tesla K80 has a significantly larger compute core, with 2,496 shading units and 208 texture mapping units, compared to the Pro 460's 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs. This massive execution resource advantage is a primary driver of its higher raw performance.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has a much higher transistor density at 24.4 million transistors per mm². This is due to its more modern 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA Tesla K80 uses TSMC's older 28 nm process and achieves a density of only 12.7M / mm².

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The Tesla K80 is equipped with 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 240.6 GB/s of bandwidth. In contrast, the Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding a much lower bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between the NVIDIA Tesla K80 and AMD Radeon Pro 460 is vast, reflecting different design goals and manufacturing generations. The K80 is built on NVIDIA's Kepler 2.0 architecture, specifically the GK210 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a large, compute-optimized chip with a die size of 561 mm² and a massive 7,100 million transistors. In contrast, the Pro 460 uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture, implemented with the Baffin chip on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This results in a much smaller die of just 123 mm² containing 3,000 million transistors.

The implications of these process nodes are clear. The Pro 460's 14 nm process allows for a transistor density of 24.4M / mm², nearly double the 12.7M / mm² of the K80. This reflects the generational leap in manufacturing technology. However, the K80 compensates with its sheer physical size and transistor count, more than doubling the Pro 460's execution resources. The K80 features 2,496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the Pro 460 is configured with 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs.

These core counts directly translate to theoretical throughput. The K80's peak FP32 performance is 4.113 TFLOPS, while the Pro 460 manages 1.858 TFLOPS. Interestingly, the Pro 460's FP16 performance is also 1.858 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a feature the K80 does not list. Pixel and texture fill rates follow the same pattern, with the K80 achieving 42.85 GPixel/s and 171.4 GTexel/s versus the Pro 460's 14.51 GPixel/s and 58.05 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another point of stark contrast. The K80 uses a 384-bit bus to access its 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, resulting in a bandwidth of 240.6 GB/s. The Pro 460 is limited to a 128-bit bus and 4 GB of GDDR5, capping bandwidth at 81.28 GB/s. This significant difference in memory bandwidth is critical for compute workloads that are often memory-bound. The K80's memory clock is listed at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Pro 460's is slightly higher at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), but the wider bus of the K80 makes the difference moot. The cards also differ in their API support, with the K80 supporting DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and the newer Vulkan 1.3.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict based on workload and physical constraints. The NVIDIA Tesla K80 is the unequivocal performance leader in raw compute benchmarks. Its 21.8% lead in OpenCL and 13.6% lead in Vulkan over the Radeon Pro 460 make it the correct choice for any task where absolute performance is the sole criterion. Its 12 GB of memory and 240.6 GB/s of bandwidth provide a substantial advantage for large datasets. The K80's average score also places it in a highly competitive position against much newer hardware, making it a surprisingly relevant option for compute tasks even today.

The AMD Radeon Pro 460, however, is not without merit. Its strengths lie in efficiency and integration. With a TDP of just 35 W compared to the K80's 300 W, it operates in a completely different power class. Its IGP slot width and lack of power connectors indicate it is designed for portable devices or systems with severe power and space limitations. It is not a fair comparison to pit a 300 W dual-chip accelerator against a 35 W integrated mobile GPU. The Pro 460's performance, while lower, is achieved at a fraction of the power draw. It also offers modern features like 1:1 FP16 support and a newer Vulkan API version, which may be relevant for specific, modern compute stacks.

Therefore, the choice is dictated by the environment. For a server or workstation where power is available and maximum compute throughput is required, the Tesla K80 is the obvious selection based on its superior benchmark scores. For a portable device or a system where the GPU must operate within a 35 W envelope, the Radeon Pro 460 is the only viable option. The benchmark results show the K80 is the more powerful card, but the Pro 460 is the more efficient one, and the "winner" depends entirely on the constraints of the deployment.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the NVIDIA Tesla K80 and the AMD Radeon Pro 460:

• Architecture: The K80 uses Kepler 2.0, while the Pro 460 uses GCN 4.0.
• Process Node: The K80 is built on a 28 nm process from TSMC, whereas the Pro 460 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries.
• Transistors: The K80 has 7,100 million transistors; the Pro 460 has 3,000 million.
• Die Size: The K80's die is 561 mm², compared to the Pro 460's 123 mm².
• Transistor Density: The K80 has a density of 12.7M / mm², while the Pro 460 has 24.4M / mm².
• Base Clock: The K80's base clock is 562 MHz, and the Pro 460's is 850 MHz.
• Boost Clock: The K80 boosts to 824 MHz, while the Pro 460 boosts to 907 MHz.
• Memory Size: The K80 has 12 GB, and the Pro 460 has 4 GB.
• Memory Bus Width: The K80 uses a 384-bit bus, and the Pro 460 uses a 128-bit bus.
• Memory Bandwidth: The K80 offers 240.6 GB/s, while the Pro 460 offers 81.28 GB/s.
• Shading Units: The K80 has 2496, and the Pro 460 has 1024.
• TMUs: The K80 has 208, and the Pro 460 has 64.
• ROPs: The K80 has 48, and the Pro 460 has 16.
• Pixel Rate: The K80 achieves 42.85 GPixel/s, and the Pro 460 achieves 14.51 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The K80 achieves 171.4 GTexel/s, and the Pro 460 achieves 58.05 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The K80 is rated at 4.113 TFLOPS, and the Pro 460 at 1.858 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: The Pro 460 lists 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1), while the K80 does not list a value.
• TDP: The K80 is rated at 300 W, and the Pro 460 at 35 W.
• Slot Width: The K80 is a Dual-slot card, while the Pro 460 is an IGP.
• Power Connectors: The K80 requires 1x 8-pin, while the Pro 460 needs None.
• Suggested PSU: The K80 suggests 700 W, and the Pro 460 has no listed value.
• Bus Interface: The K80 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, and the Pro 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Display Outputs: The K80 has No outputs, while the Pro 460 is Portable Device Dependent.
• DirectX Support: The K80 supports 12 (11_1), and the Pro 460 supports 12 (12_0).
• Vulkan Support: The K80 supports 1.2.175, and the Pro 460 supports 1.3.
• Dimensions: The K80 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long; the Pro 460 has no listed dimensions.