AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm and the AMD Radeon RX 550 come from different eras, different market segments, and different design philosophies. The Tesla K20Xm is a compute-oriented accelerator from the Kepler generation, built for scientific and data-center workloads, while the Radeon RX 550 is a small, efficient consumer graphics card from the Polaris family. The head-to-head data in the database shows a split decision, with each card claiming a victory in one of the two shared benchmark tests. This makes for an interesting comparison, not of direct competitors, but of how architectural priorities shape real-world performance across different APIs and workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two common benchmark tests for these cards: Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL. The results are starkly divided.

In the Geekbench Metal test, the AMD Radeon RX 550 achieves a score of 20,838, while the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm scores 8,035. This represents a delta of -61.4% for the Tesla, meaning the AMD card is significantly faster in this specific test. Metal is Apple’s graphics API, and the Radeon RX 550, being a consumer card with display outputs, is clearly better optimized for this type of workload. The RX 550’s advantage here is more than double, which is a substantial margin. The data shows that the Radeon RX 550 is the clear winner in this scenario, likely due to its newer architecture and driver support for modern graphics APIs.

Conversely, in the Geekbench OpenCL test, the roles reverse completely. The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215, while the AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 11,063. The delta is +55.6% for the Tesla, indicating a decisive win for the NVIDIA card. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and this result aligns with the Tesla’s intended purpose as a compute accelerator. The Tesla K20Xm’s massive 2,688 shading units and 224 texture mapping units provide a raw compute advantage that the RX 550’s 512 shading units cannot match. The 55.6% lead in OpenCL performance shows that the Tesla is not just a legacy card; it still holds a significant edge in compute-heavy tasks.

The overall head-to-head record is tied at one win each. However, the margins are not symmetrical. The AMD card wins by 159% relative to the Tesla in Metal (20,838 vs 8,035), while the Tesla wins by 55.6% in OpenCL (17,215 vs 11,063). This suggests that the RX 550’s advantage in Metal is more pronounced than the Tesla’s advantage in OpenCL, but the Tesla’s win is still substantial. The average benchmark scores reflect this balance: the Tesla K20Xm has an average score of 12,625, while the RX 550 averages 11,075. The Tesla sits slightly higher, which is consistent with its 52nd percentile ranking versus the RX 550’s 50th percentile among all GPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon RX 550 is the better choice for graphics-oriented tasks, particularly those using the Metal API. Its score of 20,838 in Geekbench Metal is its strongest recorded result, and it also has a respectable Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,270, which the Tesla K20Xm does not have a recorded result for. The RX 550 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Tesla only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), giving the AMD card a more modern feature set for gaming and direct rendering workloads. The RX 550’s display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a) mean it can actually output to a monitor, unlike the Tesla, which has no display outputs. For any user needing a functional graphics card for everyday use, desktop rendering, or light gaming, the RX 550 is the obvious winner based on the benchmark data.

The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm, on the other hand, wins decisively in general-purpose compute. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 17,215 is far ahead of the RX 550’s 11,063. This is reinforced by the raw specifications: the Tesla has 2,688 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, compared to the RX 550’s 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Tesla’s texture rate is 164.0 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s for the RX 550, and its pixel rate is 40.99 GPixel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s. The Tesla also boasts 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 249.6 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the RX 550 has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s. For workloads like data processing, scientific simulations, or machine learning inference that rely on raw floating-point throughput and memory bandwidth, the Tesla K20Xm is the superior performer. Its FP32 compute is rated at 3.935 TFLOPS, over three times the RX 550’s 1,211.4 GFLOPS.

The Verdict

Who should pick which? The answer depends entirely on the intended use case, as defined by the recorded benchmarks.

For a user building or upgrading a system that needs a functional graphics card with modern API support, display outputs, and efficient power consumption, the AMD Radeon RX 550 is the pick. Its 50 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it an easy drop-in for a low-power system. Its 145 mm length (5.7 inches) and dual-slot design are compact compared to the Tesla’s 267 mm (10.5 inches). The RX 550’s Geekbench Metal score of 20,838 is more than double the Tesla’s, and its Vulkan support (version 1.3) is more advanced than the Tesla’s (version 1.2.175). This card is clearly intended for standard graphics work, and the data supports that.

For a user running compute-intensive applications that leverage OpenCL, the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm is the better choice. Its OpenCL score of 17,215 provides a 55.6% advantage over the RX 550. The Tesla’s larger memory pool (6 GB vs 2 GB) and higher bandwidth (249.6 GB/s vs 112.0 GB/s) make it better suited for large datasets. Even though it is end-of-life and from 2012, its compute architecture remains potent. The Tesla’s 235 W TDP and suggested 550 W PSU are higher requirements, but for a dedicated compute node, that is acceptable. The percentile rankings are close (52nd vs 50th), but the Tesla’s higher average benchmark score (12,625 vs 11,075) puts it marginally ahead in overall performance.

In essence, the RX 550 wins for graphics, the Tesla K20Xm wins for compute. There is no universal winner in the data; there are only correct tools for specific jobs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench Metal score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 20,838, which is 61.4% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm’s 8,035.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm outperform the AMD Radeon RX 550 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in Geekbench OpenCL, the Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215 versus the RX 550’s 11,063, a 55.6% advantage.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Tesla K20Xm has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 249.6 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. The Tesla K20Xm supports DirectX 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.2.175, and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Are there any benchmark results unique to one card?

A: Yes, the RX 550 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,270 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 127, while the Tesla K20Xm has no recorded results for those tests.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The Tesla K20Xm’s GK110 chip has a density of 12.6 million transistors per mm², while the RX 550’s Lexa chip has a density of 21.4 million transistors per mm².

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm uses the GK110 chip, which is based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 7,080 million transistors on a die size of 561 mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX 550 uses the Lexa chip, based on the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Lexa chip has 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller die of 103 mm². The transistor density reflects this: the RX 550’s 14 nm process achieves 21.4 million transistors per mm², while the Tesla’s 28 nm process achieves only 12.6 million per mm². This means the RX 550 packs more transistors into a smaller area, a sign of its newer manufacturing technology.

The architectural philosophies also diverge. Kepler was designed for high compute throughput, with a massive number of shading units (2,688) and a wide memory bus (384-bit). GCN 4.0, on the other hand, focuses on efficiency and balanced performance, with 512 shading units and a narrower 128-bit bus. The Tesla’s memory clock is listed as 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the RX 550 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), but the Tesla’s wider bus more than compensates in total bandwidth. The Tesla has no display outputs and is designed as a compute accelerator, while the RX 550 includes a full set of display outputs and is meant for consumer use. The Tesla’s FP16 performance is not listed, while the RX 550 offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 1,211.4 GFLOPS. This indicates that the RX 550 has explicit support for half-precision compute, which is useful for certain AI and graphics workloads, whereas the Tesla appears to lack this capability in the recorded data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm | AMD Radeon RX 550 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler (GK110) | GCN 4.0 (Lexa) |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1183 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB GDDR5 | 2 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 249.6 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2688 | 512 |

| TMUs | 224 | 32 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 40.99 GPixel/s | 18.93 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 164.0 GTexel/s | 37.86 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.935 TFLOPS | 1,211.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 235 W | 50 W |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.3 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2012-11-11 | 2017-04-19 |

The specification table makes the divide clear. The Tesla K20Xm is a larger, power-hungry, compute-focused accelerator with a wider memory bus and far more shading units. The RX 550 is a compact, low-power, graphics-oriented card with modern API support and a smaller footprint. The Tesla’s launch MSRP was 7,699 USD, while the RX 550 launched at 79 USD, reflecting their different market positions. The data supports the conclusion that these are not rivals in any traditional sense, but rather two specialized tools whose benchmark scores reveal complementary strengths.