Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20m Comparison

# Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20m

The Intel Arc A750 and NVIDIA Tesla K20m represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The Arc A750, built on TSMC's 6 nm process with the Xe-HPG architecture, delivers benchmark results that completely overshadow the Kepler-based Tesla K20m from 2013. In the two shared benchmarks, the Arc A750 wins decisively, with an average benchmark score of 20,582 compared to the Tesla K20m's 19,089 — a modest 7.8% overall gap that masks the enormous generational leap in specific workloads. The data reveals a clear story: the Arc A750 is not just faster, it is in a different performance class entirely, while the Tesla K20m retains relevance only in its narrow compute-oriented design philosophy.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison consists of two benchmark tests, and the Intel Arc A750 wins both with margins that are nothing short of staggering. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A750 scores 98,554 against the Tesla K20m's 16,241. That is a delta of 506.8% — the Arc A750 delivers more than six times the raw compute performance in this OpenCL workload. To put that in perspective, the Arc A750's nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the Intel Arc B570 at 20,556 (just 0.1% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20,534 (0.2% behind), while the Tesla K20m sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 at 19,030 (0.3% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19,036 (0.3% ahead). The 506.8% OpenCL delta is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational chasm that reflects the fundamental differences in architecture, process technology, and feature support.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Intel Arc A750 scores 85,631, while the NVIDIA Tesla K20m manages only 21,936. The delta here is 290.4%, meaning the Arc A750 is nearly four times faster in this API. Vulkan is a modern low-overhead graphics API, and the Arc A750's support for Vulkan 1.4 (versus the Tesla K20m's 1.2.175) gives it a substantial advantage in driver efficiency and feature utilization. The Tesla K20m, despite its Kepler architecture's compute pedigree, simply cannot keep pace with the Arc A750's newer shader cores, higher memory bandwidth, and more advanced rasterization pipeline. The data shows a 2-0 win count for the Arc A750, with no benchmark where the Tesla K20m comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A750 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the NVIDIA Tesla K20m?

A: The Arc A750 scores 98,554 versus the Tesla K20m's 16,241, a delta of 506.8%. This means the Arc A750 delivers roughly six times the OpenCL performance of the Tesla K20m.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Tesla K20m win any benchmark against the Intel Arc A750?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — the Arc A750 wins both. The Tesla K20m has zero wins in this comparison.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The Intel Arc A750 has an average benchmark score of 20,582, while the NVIDIA Tesla K20m averages 19,089. The Arc A750 ranks in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla K20m sits in the 64th percentile.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The Intel Arc A750 scores 85,631 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the Tesla K20m's 21,936. The delta is 290.4%, giving the Arc A750 a nearly fourfold advantage in Vulkan workloads.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare to each card?

A: The Arc A750's nearest rival is the Intel Arc B570 with an average score of 20,556 (0.1% behind), while the Tesla K20m's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 at 19,164 (0.4% ahead). Both cards sit in a competitive cluster, but the Arc A750's cluster is at a higher absolute performance level.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: Both the Intel Arc A750 and the NVIDIA Tesla K20m are end-of-life products. The Arc A750 was released on 2022-10-11, while the Tesla K20m was released on 2013-01-04.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is profound. The Intel Arc A750 uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-512 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA Tesla K20m uses the Kepler architecture with the GK110 chip, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 7,080 million transistors on a much larger 561 mm² die, with a transistor density of just 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Arc A750's process advantage is stark: it fits more than three times the transistors in a smaller physical area.

The Arc A750 features 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 112 raster operation units, along with 28 ray tracing cores. The Tesla K20m has 2,496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and only 40 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores at all. The ray tracing capability alone is a fundamental architectural differentiator — the Arc A750 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware-accelerated ray tracing, while the Tesla K20m is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no RT support. The Arc A750 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla K20m caps at Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

The memory architecture differs as well. The Arc A750 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla K20m has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, with 208.0 GB/s of bandwidth — less than half the Arc A750's throughput. The Arc A750 runs at a 2050 MHz base clock and 2400 MHz boost clock, while the Tesla K20m's core clocks are not specified in the data. Memory clocks also differ: the Arc A750 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the Tesla K20m runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Intel Arc A750 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA Tesla K20m has 5 GB of GDDR5. Memory bus width favors the Tesla K20m at 320 bits versus the Arc A750's 256 bits, but the Arc A750's higher memory clock and newer memory type result in 512.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 208.0 GB/s — a 2.46x advantage for the Arc A750.

Shading units: 3,584 on the Arc A750 versus 2,496 on the Tesla K20m. TMUs: 224 versus 208. ROPs: 112 versus 40. The Arc A750 has 28 ray tracing cores; the Tesla K20m has none. Pixel rate is 268.8 GPixel/s on the Arc A750 versus 36.71 GPixel/s on the Tesla K20m. Texture rate is 537.6 GTexel/s versus 146.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 17.20 TFLOPS on the Arc A750 versus 3.524 TFLOPS on the Tesla K20m. The Arc A750 also supports FP16 at 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Tesla K20m has no FP16 capability listed.

The process node difference is significant: 6 nm for the Arc A750 versus 28 nm for the Tesla K20m. Transistor count is 21,700 million versus 7,080 million. Die size is 406 mm² versus 561 mm². Transistor density is 53.4M/mm² versus 12.6M/mm². Both cards have a TDP of 225 W and require a 550 W power supply, with identical power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin). Both are dual-slot cards.

The bus interface differs: the Arc A750 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Tesla K20m uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are a major differentiator: the Arc A750 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while the Tesla K20m has no display outputs at all — it is a compute-only accelerator. The Tesla K20m is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, while the Arc A750's dimensions are not specified. The Tesla K20m's launch MSRP was 3,199 USD; the Arc A750's launch MSRP was 289 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A750 wins in every benchmark category where both cards were tested. Its 2-0 record in head-to-head tests is complemented by its higher average benchmark score (20,582 versus 19,089), higher percentile ranking (66th versus 64th), and superior specifications across the board. The Arc A750 is the clear choice for any workload that leverages modern graphics APIs, ray tracing, or high-bandwidth memory. Its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it suitable for gaming, content creation, and general-purpose compute tasks that can utilize DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

The Arc A750's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc B570 (0.1% behind in average score) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (0.2% behind), placing it in a competitive modern GPU tier. For users building a system today, the Arc A750's support for HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0 means it can drive modern high-refresh-rate displays, something the Tesla K20m cannot do at all due to its lack of display outputs.

The NVIDIA Tesla K20m, despite losing every benchmark, still has a role in specific legacy or compute-focused environments. Its Kepler architecture was designed for high-performance computing, and its 2,496 shading units and 208 TMUs in a 225 W envelope made it a workhorse for scientific computing in its era. The Tesla K20m's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (0.3% ahead in average score) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (0.4% ahead), indicating it still performs competitively within its own generation. However, with only 3.524 TFLOPS FP32, 5 GB of GDDR5 memory, and no ray tracing or modern API support, the Tesla K20m is severely limited for contemporary applications.

The data suggests a clear verdict: the Intel Arc A750 is the superior GPU in virtually every measurable way. The Tesla K20m is a relic of a pre-DirectX 12 Ultimate era, and while it holds its own against other Kepler-generation cards, it cannot compete with the architectural advancements of the Arc A750. For anyone choosing between these two, the Arc A750 offers better performance, more features, and a more modern feature set — the Tesla K20m's only advantage is its historical significance as a compute accelerator from a different decade.