AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT vs NVIDIA Tesla K20m Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20m records a higher average benchmark score of 19,089 compared to the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT's 16,361. This places the Tesla K20m in the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 5700 XT sits in the 59th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Tesla K20m wins the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively, scoring 16,241 against the RX 5700 XT's 9,524. This represents a 70.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card in this compute workload.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT dominates the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 68,310 versus the Tesla K20m's 21,936. The AMD card leads by 67.9% in this API.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Tesla K20m has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 208.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5700 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor and process node details?

A: The Tesla K20m uses a 28 nm process with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. The RX 5700 XT uses a 7 nm process with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The NVIDIA card has 2,496 shading units, while the AMD card has slightly more at 2,560 shading units. However, the RX 5700 XT has fewer TMUs (160 vs 208) but more ROPs (64 vs 40).

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on workload type. The NVIDIA Tesla K20m is the compute-oriented choice, winning the only OpenCL benchmark head-to-head by a massive 70.5% margin. Its 3.524 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 208.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, while older, still outperform in this specific generic compute test.

For any graphics-oriented task, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is the clear pick. It wins the Vulkan benchmark decisively, and its architectural advantages show in the specification sheet: FP32 performance is 9.754 TFLOPS versus 3.524 TFLOPS, and pixel rate is 121.9 GPixel/s versus 36.71 GPixel/s. The RX 5700 XT also has twice the memory bandwidth (448.0 GB/s vs 208.0 GB/s) and more VRAM (8 GB vs 5 GB).

However, the overall database average tells a nuanced story. The Tesla K20m's average score of 19,089 beats the RX 5700 XT's 16,361, but this is heavily weighted by the K20m's OpenCL strength. The RX 5700 XT's Vulkan score is 3.1 times higher, and its own nearest rival list shows it trades blows with modern workstation cards like the Radeon PRO W7500 (0.3% difference) and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (0.3% difference).

The recommendation is split: for compute-heavy, OpenCL-centric workloads, choose the Tesla K20m. For any gaming, modern API, or content creation task involving Vulkan or DirectX, the RX 5700 XT is overwhelmingly the more capable part. The K20m lacks any display outputs, while the RX 5700 XT provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The K20m is end-of-life, as is the RX 5700 XT, but the AMD card is the one that makes sense for actual use in a system with a display.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only two direct benchmark comparisons between these cards, and they split the result exactly one win each.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Tesla K20m wins decisively. It scores 16,241 versus the RX 5700 XT's 9,524. That is a 70.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is a significant margin, and it reflects the K20m's compute-oriented design. The K20m's nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (0.2% difference) and the Radeon RX 6600 (0.3% difference), showing it is competitive with much more recent cards in this specific test. In contrast, the RX 5700 XT's OpenCL score is its weakest recorded result, and it pull its average down.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is the reverse. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 68,310, while the Tesla K20m manages only 21,936. That is a 67.9% margin for the AMD card. The RX 5700 XT's Vulkan score is over three times higher than the K20m's, and it is a strong result for a card in the 59th percentile. The K20m's Vulkan score of 21,936 is actually higher than its OpenCL score (16,241), but it is still nowhere near the AMD card's performance.

Looking at the closest rivals for each card helps contextualize these numbers. The K20m's average benchmark score of 19,089 is within 0.4% of the GeForce GTX 780 (19,164), and within 0.3% of the Quadro K6000 (19,030). The RX 5700 XT's average score of 16,361 is within 0.3% of the Radeon PRO W7500 (16,415) and 0.9% of the RTX 5090 D V2 (16,504). So the Tesla K20m, despite its age, hangs with a GTX 780 in the database, while the RX 5700 XT is near a modern workstation card, but the K20m's OpenCL win is the only head-to-head where it beats the RX 5700 XT.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification.

Memory: The Tesla K20m has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, with bandwidth of 208.0 GB/s and memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The RX 5700 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s and memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Processing units: The K20m has 2,496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The RX 5700 XT has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs.

Clock speeds: The K20m has no base or boost clock listed in the data, while the RX 5700 XT has a base clock of 1605 MHz, a game clock of 1755 MHz, and a boost clock of 1905 MHz.

Rates: The K20m's pixel rate is 36.71 GPixel/s and texture rate is 146.8 GTexel/s. The RX 5700 XT's pixel rate is 121.9 GPixel/s and texture rate is 304.8 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance: The K20m delivers 3.524 TFLOPS. The RX 5700 XT delivers 9.754 TFLOPS, and also has FP16 performance of 19.51 TFLOPS (2:1) which the K20m lacks.

Physical dimensions: The K20m is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long. The RX 5700 XT is 272 mm (10.7 inches) long, with a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches) and a width of 36 mm (1.4 inches). Both are dual-slot cards with the same power configuration (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin) and the same 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU.

Bus and outputs: The K20m uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and has no display outputs. The RX 5700 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

API support: The K20m supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 5700 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations and process nodes.

The NVIDIA Tesla K20m is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK110 chip. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die is large at 561 mm², and it packs 7,080 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The architecture is from the Tesla Kepler generation (Kxx), with a predecessor of Tesla Fermi and a successor of Tesla Maxwell. Its memory interface is 320-bit, and it was released in 2013.

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, using the Navi 10 chip. It is manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The die is much smaller at 251 mm², but contains more transistors at 10,300 million, giving a transistor density of 41.0M per mm², over three times the K20m's density. It belongs to the Navi (RX 5000) generation, with a predecessor of Vega and a successor of Navi II. Its memory interface is GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

The architectural differences directly explain the benchmark outcomes. The Kepler GK110 is a compute-focused design with a high TMU count (208) for its era, but it lacks the modern graphics pipeline features of RDNA 1.0. The RX 5700 XT has a much higher FP32 throughput (9.754 TFLOPS vs 3.524 TFLOPS) and supports FP16 compute, which the K20m does not. The K20m also lacks any display outputs, confirming its role as a compute accelerator rather than a graphics card.

The RX 5700 XT's newer API support (DirectX 12_1 vs 11_0, Vulkan 1.4 vs 1.2.175) and its memory bandwidth advantage (448.0 GB/s vs 208.0 GB/s) are direct results of the 7 nm process and newer memory technology. The K20m's only significant win is in the OpenCL compute test, which likely reflects its optimized compute scheduling for that API, despite its lower raw throughput numbers.