Intel Arc B570 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20m Comparison

The Intel Arc B570 and NVIDIA Tesla K20m represent two vastly different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects a generational chasm. The Arc B570, a modern Battlemage part, utterly dominates the legacy Tesla K20m compute card in every measurable category, with the data showing a complete sweep of the two available head-to-head tests. The Tesla K20m, meanwhile, offers a glimpse into the high-performance computing landscape of over a decade ago, with architectural choices that have since been superseded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is strikingly one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc B570 scores 83,514, which is a staggering 414.2% higher than the Tesla K20m's 16,241. This is not a marginal victory; it is a complete obliteration, indicating that the Arc B570's modern architecture and driver optimizations deliver over five times the raw compute throughput in this general-purpose workload.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story. The Arc B570 achieves a score of 96,844, while the Tesla K20m manages only 21,936. This represents a 341.5% advantage for the Intel part. Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API, and the Tesla K20m's support for it, while present, is clearly not optimized for performance. The data suggests that the Arc B570 is not just faster, but fundamentally more efficient at translating API calls into actual graphics and compute work.

Looking at the broader context, the Arc B570's average benchmark score of 20,556 places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, which scores 20,480, a mere 0.4% difference. This shows the Arc B570 is a solid mid-range performer. In contrast, the Tesla K20m's average score of 19,089 puts it in the 64th percentile, with its closest competitor being the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19,049 (0.2% difference). While their percentile rankings are nearly identical, the absolute performance gap is stark, underscoring how the baseline for average performance has shifted dramatically.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is profound. The Intel Arc B570 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture (codenamed Battlemage) using a 5 nm process at TSMC, packing 19,600 million transistors into a 272 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 72.1M per mm². The Tesla K20m, by contrast, uses the older Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC, but contains only 7,080 million transistors on a much larger 561 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of just 12.6M per mm². The data shows the Arc B570 achieves nearly six times the transistor density, which is a primary driver of its performance and efficiency advantages.

The compute configurations also differ significantly. The Arc B570 features 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, alongside 18 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Tesla K20m has 2,496 shading units, 208 TMUs, but only 40 ROPs, and no ray tracing cores. Despite having more shading units and TMUs, the Tesla K20m's older architecture and much lower clock speeds result in far inferior performance. The Arc B570's pixel rate is 200.0 GPixel/s versus the Tesla's 36.71 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 360.0 GTexel/s versus 146.8 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is similarly lopsided: 11.52 TFLOPS for the Arc B570 versus 3.524 TFLOPS for the Tesla K20m. The Arc B570 also supports FP16 at 23.04 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the Tesla K20m does not have.

Memory is another area of stark contrast. The Arc B570 uses 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 380.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla K20m uses 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, but only achieves 208.0 GB/s. The Arc B570's memory clock is 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective), while the Tesla K20m's is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The newer memory technology and higher clocks give the Arc a significant bandwidth advantage despite its narrower bus.

The feature sets also reflect their respective eras. The Arc B570 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Tesla K20m only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Arc B570 supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the Tesla's 1.2.175. The Arc B570 is also a fully featured display card with 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the Tesla K20m is a compute-only card with no display outputs. It requires an additional 6-pin power connector alongside an 8-pin, whereas the Arc B570 uses a single 8-pin connector.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous verdict. The Intel Arc B570 is superior to the NVIDIA Tesla K20m in every benchmark and specification that can be compared. It wins both head-to-head tests by margins of 414.2% and 341.5%, respectively. Its average benchmark score is higher, its architecture is newer and more efficient, and its feature set is vastly more modern.

The Tesla K20m's only advantage is its higher theoretical shading unit and TMU counts, but these are rendered irrelevant by its significantly lower clocks, older architecture, and lack of modern API features. This is a comparison across a 12-year gap in release dates, with the K20m launching in January 2013 and the Arc B570 in January 2025. The production status tells the story: the Arc B570 is Active, while the Tesla K20m is End-of-life. Any user presented with the choice between these two cards, based strictly on performance and features, would select the Arc B570 without hesitation.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc B570 in OpenCL compute?

A: The Arc B570 scores 83,514 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 414.2% higher than the Tesla K20m's score of 16,241.

Q: Does the Tesla K20m support ray tracing?

A: No, the Tesla K20m has no ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc B570 has 18 dedicated RT cores.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The Intel Arc B570 has a memory bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s, while the Tesla K20m has 208.0 GB/s, making the Arc B570's bandwidth 172 GB/s higher.

Q: Which card is better for modern gaming APIs like Vulkan?

A: The Intel Arc B570 is significantly better, with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 96,844 versus the Tesla K20m's 21,936, a 341.5% difference. It also supports a newer version of Vulkan (1.4 vs 1.2.175).

Q: Are both cards the same physical size?

A: They are similar in length, with the Arc B570 at 272 mm and the Tesla K20m at 267 mm. Both are dual-slot cards.

Q: What is the difference in their transistor density?

A: The Intel Arc B570 has a transistor density of 72.1M per mm², while the Tesla K20m has only 12.6M per mm², showing the massive efficiency gain of the newer 5nm process.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the Intel Arc B570 wins in every possible use case. It is the clear choice for any modern workload, including gaming, content creation, and general compute. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 makes it compatible with the latest software, while its display outputs allow for direct monitor connection. Its higher FP32 and FP16 performance makes it more suitable for AI and machine learning tasks that can leverage these features.

The NVIDIA Tesla K20m, however, has a singular niche. As a compute-focused card from the Kepler era with no display outputs, it was designed for scientific and data center workloads where graphics output is unnecessary. Its legacy lies in its use of the GK110 chip, which was a powerful compute processor in its day. However, its 5 GB of memory and 208.0 GB/s bandwidth are now limiting factors for modern datasets. The data shows that despite its higher raw shading unit count, it is outperformed by the Arc B570 in every compute benchmark. Its only "win" is a historical one, serving as a reference point for how far GPU technology has advanced.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc B570 | NVIDIA Tesla K20m |

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

| Architecture | Xe2-HPG | Kepler |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 19,600 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 272 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 72.1M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 10 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 380.0 GB/s | 208.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 2496 |

| TMUs | 144 | 208 |

| ROPs | 80 | 40 |

| RT Cores | 18 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 200.0 GPixel/s | 36.71 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 360.0 GTexel/s | 146.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 11.52 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 225 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |