AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20c Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a narrow but clear outcome: the NVIDIA Tesla K20c leads the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 in the sole head-to-head comparison, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11,479 against 11,228, a margin of 2.2%. The Tesla K20c also holds a slight edge in overall percentile ranking, sitting at the 51st percentile among all GPUs compared to the WX 3200's 50th percentile. For users whose primary concern is raw OpenCL compute throughput, the Tesla K20c is the data-backed choice.

However, the verdict is not that simple. The Radeon Pro WX 3200, while losing the compute benchmark, is a fundamentally different product with a much lower power draw (65 W vs 225 W), no external power connectors, and a single-slot design. The Tesla K20c, by contrast, requires dual-slot spacing, a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector, and a 550 W suggested PSU. The WX 3200 also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Tesla K20c has no display outputs at all. From the data, the WX 3200 is the only one of the two that can be used as a workstation card with monitor connectivity; the Tesla K20c is purely a compute accelerator.

Therefore, the verdict depends entirely on use case. If the workload is compute-bound and display output is irrelevant, the Tesla K20c's 2.2% benchmark advantage makes it the pick. If the workload requires driving displays, fits within a 65 W power envelope, or needs a single-slot card, the WX 3200 is the only viable option — and its compute deficit is small enough that it remains competitive. The data does not support calling either card a definitive winner across all scenarios; it supports calling the Tesla K20c the winner on raw compute and the WX 3200 the winner on practicality and connectivity.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different process nodes. The NVIDIA Tesla K20c uses the GK110 chip, based on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip, based on GCN 4.0, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. This process difference is significant: the Tesla K20c packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The WX 3200 packs 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, yielding a much higher density of 21.4 million per mm².

The compute resources differ dramatically in scale. The Tesla K20c has 2,496 shading units, 208 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the Tesla K20c a theoretical FP32 throughput of 3.524 TFLOPS, more than double the WX 3200's 1.658 TFLOPS. The WX 3200 does offer FP16 at the same rate as FP32 (1.658 TFLOPS), while the Tesla K20c has no listed FP16 capability. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Memory configurations also diverge. The Tesla K20c has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 208.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 3200 has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. The Tesla K20c's memory clock is listed as 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the WX 3200 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Despite the higher clock speed on the WX 3200, the Tesla K20c's wider bus gives it more than double the bandwidth.

Feature support differs in direct API versions. The Tesla K20c supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Tesla K20c uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the WX 3200 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11,479, which is 2.2% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200's 11,228. The Tesla K20c wins the only head-to-head benchmark listed.

Q: Can either card output video to a display?

A: No. The NVIDIA Tesla K20c has no display outputs. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, however, has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it the only one of the two capable of driving monitors.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Tesla K20c has a TDP of 225 W and requires a 6-pin plus an 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W, requires no external power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Tesla K20c has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, providing 208.0 GB/s. The WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s. The Tesla K20c offers over twice the bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more recent and what is its process node?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 was released later (2019-07-01) and is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA Tesla K20c was released earlier (2012-11-11) and uses a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput for each card?

A: The Tesla K20c delivers 3.524 TFLOPS FP32, while the WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS FP32. The Tesla K20c has roughly 2.1 times the FP32 throughput.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node changes from 28 nm (Tesla K20c, TSMC) to 14 nm (WX 3200, GlobalFoundries). Transistor count drops from 7,080 million to 2,200 million, while die size shrinks from 561 mm² to 103 mm². Transistor density improves from 12.6M/mm² to 21.4M/mm².

The compute units scale down: shading units drop from 2,496 to 640, TMUs from 208 to 32, and ROPs from 40 to 16. FP32 throughput halves from 3.524 TFLOPS to 1.658 TFLOPS, with the WX 3200 adding FP16 at 1:1 ratio (1.658 TFLOPS) while the Tesla K20c has no FP16 listing.

Memory capacity goes from 5 GB to 4 GB. Bus width narrows from 320-bit to 128-bit. Memory bandwidth drops from 208.0 GB/s to 96.00 GB/s. Memory clock changes from 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) to 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Power and physical dimensions differ substantially. TDP drops from 225 W to 65 W. Slot width changes from dual-slot to single-slot. Power connectors go from 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin to none. Suggested PSU drops from 550 W to 250 W. The Tesla K20c is 267 mm long (10.5 inches), while the WX 3200 is 167 mm long (6.6 inches) and 69 mm high (2.7 inches).

Bus interface changes from PCIe 2.0 x16 to PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs go from none to 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support improves from 12 (11_0) to 12 (12_0), and Vulkan from 1.2.175 to 1.3. The launch MSRP differs: the Tesla K20c launched at 3,199 USD, while the WX 3200 launched at 199 USD. Release dates are 2012-11-11 for the Tesla K20c and 2019-07-01 for the WX 3200. Both are end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark listed is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11,479, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228. The Tesla K20c wins by 2.2%. This is a modest margin, not a dominant one. For context, the Tesla K20c's nearest rivals in the overall database are the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11,528, delta -0.4%), the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627, delta -1.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680, delta -1.7%), with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261, delta +1.9%) just behind. The WX 3200's nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225, delta 0%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261, delta -0.3%), and two NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 variants (both 11,088, delta +1.3%).

The 2.2% delta between the two cards puts them in the same performance tier. In the broader database, the Tesla K20c sits at the 51st percentile, and the WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile — effectively adjacent. The Tesla K20c's win is real but narrow, and both cards land within a few percentage points of a cluster of rivals including the GTX 780M and the Radeon Pro 5500M.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla K20c wins on raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rating of 3.524 TFLOPS is more than double the WX 3200's 1.658 TFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth of 208.0 GB/s is more than double the WX 3200's 96.00 GB/s. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it leads by 2.2%. For workloads that are heavily parallel and bandwidth-sensitive — typical of general-purpose GPU compute tasks — the Tesla K20c's architectural resources give it the advantage. Its larger shading unit count (2,496 vs 640) and TMU count (208 vs 32) support this interpretation.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins on practicality and efficiency. It draws 65 W versus 225 W, needs no external power connectors, and fits in a single slot. It is 167 mm long versus 267 mm, making it compatible with smaller chassis. It provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, so it can actually drive displays — the Tesla K20c cannot. It uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which is a newer bus standard than the Tesla K20c's PCIe 2.0 x16. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, both more recent API versions than the Tesla K20c's DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The data does not show any benchmark where the WX 3200 wins outright. Its single benchmark score of 11,228 is lower than the Tesla K20c's 11,479. However, the WX 3200's wins are in the specification sheet, not the benchmark column. For a user building a workstation that needs display output, low power consumption, and a small physical footprint, the WX 3200 is the only choice — and its compute deficit of 2.2% is small enough that it may not matter for many workloads. For a user with a compute server that has no display needs, spare power headroom, and space for a dual-slot card, the Tesla K20c's benchmark win and superior memory bandwidth make it the data-supported selection.