AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20c Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Tesla K20c is the clear performance winner in this comparison. Based on the recorded Geekbench OpenCL data, the Tesla K20c scores 11,479 points against the AMD Radeon R9 M375's 10,457 points, a 9.8% advantage. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute performance, the Tesla K20c is the superior choice.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375, however, has one distinct advantage: it supports Vulkan. The database shows a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,682 for the R9 M375, while the Tesla K20c has no recorded Vulkan benchmark. If Vulkan compute is required, the R9 M375 is the only option between these two.

The Tesla K20c also sits higher in the overall performance distribution. It ranks at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, while the R9 M375 ranks at the 48th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Tesla K20c is 11,479, compared to 10,070 for the R9 M375, reinforcing the Tesla's edge across its available benchmarks.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the Tesla K20c is the pick. For users needing Vulkan support or a more modern feature set in a smaller package, the R9 M375 has its place, but the performance gap is significant.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and vastly different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Tesla K20c uses the GK110 chip under the Kepler architecture, belonging to the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip under GCN 1.0, part of the Gem System (R9 M300) generation.

Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The Tesla K20c packs 7,080 million transistors onto a 561 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The R9 M375 contains only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2M per mm². The Tesla's die is over four times larger, reflecting its compute-oriented design.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Tesla K20c has 2,496 shading units, 208 texture mapping units, and 40 raster operation pipelines. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 36.71 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 146.8 GTexel/s for the Tesla, versus 16.24 GPixel/s and 40.60 GTexel/s for the R9 M375. The Tesla's FP32 throughput is 3.524 TFLOPS, while the R9 M375 delivers 1,299.2 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The Tesla K20c uses 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, yielding 208.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, providing only 28.80 GB/s. The memory clock for the Tesla is listed at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the R9 M375 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Tesla's bandwidth advantage is roughly 7.2 times that of the R9 M375.

The Tesla K20c also has a much higher thermal design power at 225 W, requiring dual-slot cooling and both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The R9 M375 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, or PSU recommendation, suggesting a much lower power envelope intended for mobile or compact systems.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K20c wins decisively in OpenCL compute. Its 9.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, and it reflects the massive hardware advantage in shading units, memory bandwidth, and pixel throughput. This GPU is built for high-throughput parallel workloads, and the data confirms that strength.

The R9 M375 wins in API coverage. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Tesla K20c supports Vulkan 1.2.175 but only DirectX 12 (11_0). The R9 M375 has a recorded Vulkan score of 9,682, whereas the Tesla has no Vulkan benchmark in the database. For applications that require Vulkan compute, the R9 M375 is the only functional choice.

The R9 M375 also has a more modern bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus the Tesla's PCIe 2.0 x16. This could matter for system integration, though the Tesla's raw compute power likely compensates in most workloads.

In terms of market positioning, the Tesla K20c sits at the 51st percentile, just above average, while the R9 M375 sits at the 48th percentile. The Tesla's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (0.4% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (1.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (1.7% ahead), while it leads the GeForce GTX 780M by 1.9%. The R9 M375's nearest rivals are all within 2%: the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is 0.3% behind, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is 0.6% behind, the GeForce GTX 870M is 1.1% behind, and the GeForce GTX 950A is 2% ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11,479 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 scores 10,457. The Tesla leads by 9.8%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R9 M375 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the R9 M375 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,682. The Tesla K20c has no Vulkan benchmark recorded.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla K20c offers 208.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus. The R9 M375 provides 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Tesla K20c contains 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. The R9 M375 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU ranks higher among all GPUs?

A: The Tesla K20c ranks at the 51st percentile, while the R9 M375 ranks at the 48th percentile.

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each GPU?

A: The Tesla K20c delivers 3.524 TFLOPS, while the R9 M375 delivers 1,299.2 GFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA Tesla K20c scored 11,479, defeating the AMD Radeon R9 M375's 10,457 by 9.8%. This is a substantial margin, especially considering that both GPUs are end-of-life products.

To contextualize the Tesla's score, it sits close to several modern competitors. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 11,528, just 0.4% above the Tesla. The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT scores 11,627, 1.3% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 scores 11,680, 1.7% higher. On the other side, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11,261, which is 1.9% below the Tesla. This places the Tesla K20c in a competitive band with much newer hardware, despite its 2012 release.

The R9 M375's OpenCL score of 10,457 places it near the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, which scores 10,043 (0.3% below the R9 M375). The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 10,013 (0.6% below), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M scores 9,959 (1.1% below). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273, which is 2% above the R9 M375. The R9 M375's average benchmark score of 10,070 is dragged down by its lower Vulkan score of 9,682.

The wins tally confirms the Tesla's dominance: it has 1 win in the head-to-head benchmarks, while the R9 M375 has 0. The Tesla's pixel rate of 36.71 GPixel/s and texture rate of 146.8 GTexel/s dwarf the R9 M375's 16.24 GPixel/s and 40.60 GTexel/s, explaining why the OpenCL gap is so pronounced.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Tesla K20c uses the GK110 chip, while the R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip. The Tesla belongs to the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation, the R9 M375 to the Gem System (R9 M300) generation.

Process node and foundry are identical: 28 nm at TSMC. Transistor counts differ massively: 7,080 million versus 1,500 million. Die size is 561 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is nearly the same at 12.6M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

Clocks differ in structure. The Tesla has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The R9 M375 has a base clock of 1000 MHz, a boost clock of 1015 MHz, and memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Memory configuration is a major differentiator: 5 GB GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 208.0 GB/s bandwidth for the Tesla, versus 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s for the R9 M375.

Compute resources: the Tesla has 2,496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 36.71 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, texture rates 146.8 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 3.524 TFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS.

The Tesla has a TDP of 225 W, is dual-slot, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The R9 M375 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connectors, or PSU requirement. The Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16, the R9 M375 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs: the Tesla has no outputs, while the R9 M375 has no recorded display outputs. API support: the Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Physical dimensions: the Tesla is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long. The R9 M375 has no recorded length, height, or width. Release dates differ by roughly two and a half years: the Tesla launched in November 2012, the R9 M375 in May 2015. The Tesla's launch MSRP was 3,199 USD; the R9 M375 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life products, with the Tesla succeeding Tesla Fermi and preceding Tesla Maxwell, while the R9 M375 succeeds Solar System and precedes Polaris Mobile.