NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB vs NVIDIA Tesla K20m Comparison

The GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB and the Tesla K20m represent two very different design philosophies from NVIDIA, separated by three years of architecture evolution. The GTX 1060 is a consumer Pascal card built for efficiency and gaming, while the K20m is a Kepler compute accelerator built for workstations and servers. The benchmark data shows they land within 1.3% of each other in average score, making this a true performance coin-flip that comes down to workload. The GTX 1060 wins the OpenCL test by a wide margin, while the Tesla K20m takes the Vulkan test decisively. This split makes the choice entirely dependent on which API and workload you prioritize.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB dominates in OpenCL compute workloads. Its score of 27001 in geekbench_opencl is 66.3% higher than the Tesla K20m's 16241, which is the single largest performance gap between these two cards in either direction. This suggests the Pascal architecture's raw FP32 throughput and modern scheduling handle OpenCL's execution model more efficiently. The GTX 1060 also has a higher average benchmark score of 19334 versus 19089 for the K20m, though the delta is small at 1.3%.

The Tesla K20m wins in Vulkan, posting 21936 against the GTX 1060's 17475, a 20.3% advantage. This is a substantial margin that flips the overall picture. The K20m's massive 2496 shading units and 208 texture mapping units give it raw parallel throughput that Vulkan can exploit effectively. Even though the K20m has lower pixel rate (36.71 GPixel/s versus 81.98 GPixel/s) and lower FP32 (3.524 TFLOPS versus 3.935 TFLOPS), its sheer core count wins out in Vulkan's lower-overhead API. The K20m also matches the GTX 1060 in overall percentile ranking at 64, meaning both cards sit at the same position relative to all other GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturing generations and design goals. The GTX 1060 uses the GP106 chip on TSMC's 16 nm process, packing 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. This gives it a transistor density of 22.0M per mm², which is nearly double the K20m's 12.6M per mm². The Tesla K20m uses the GK110 chip on the older 28 nm process, with 7,080 million transistors spread across a massive 561 mm² die. That is 61% more transistors than the GTX 1060, but on a process node that is two generations behind.

The K20m compensates for its older process with brute-force parallelism. It has 2496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, compared to the GTX 1060's 1152 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The K20m has more than double the shading units and nearly triple the TMUs, but fewer ROPs. Memory configurations differ significantly: the K20m has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus delivering 208.0 GB/s, while the GTX 1060 has 3 GB on a 192-bit bus at 192.2 GB/s. The K20m's bandwidth advantage is modest at 8.2%, but its memory pool is 67% larger.

Clock behavior also separates them. The GTX 1060 runs at 1506 MHz base and 1708 MHz boost, a modern approach with explicit boost clocks. The K20m lists no base or boost clocks in the data, only a memory clock of 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective speed. Power and connectivity differ sharply: the GTX 1060 draws 120 W with a single 6-pin connector and 300 W suggested PSU, while the K20m draws 225 W with both a 6-pin and 8-pin connector and a 550 W suggested PSU. The K20m also has no display outputs at all, being a pure compute accelerator, whereas the GTX 1060 has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL benchmark is where the GTX 1060 separates itself decisively. It scores 27001 versus the K20m's 16241, a 66.3% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it is a blowout that reflects how Pascal's architecture handles OpenCL's memory and execution patterns. The GTX 1060's newer process node and higher clocks (1506 MHz base versus no listed clocks for the K20m) likely contribute to this result. In practical terms, if your workload is OpenCL-based, the GTX 1060 is the clear choice.

The Vulkan benchmark tells the opposite story. The Tesla K20m scores 21936 against the GTX 1060's 17475, a 20.3% advantage for the older card. This is a significant reversal that shows the K20m's massive shading unit count (2496 versus 1152) can still deliver in modern APIs when the workload scales well across cores. The K20m's higher texture rate (146.8 GTexel/s versus 123.0 GTexel/s) also helps in Vulkan's draw-call-heavy workloads. However, the GTX 1060 has a much higher pixel rate (81.98 GPixel/s versus 36.71 GPixel/s), which explains why the K20m cannot translate its core advantage into a win in every API.

Looking at the nearest rival data, the GTX 1060's average score of 19334 puts it 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19410), 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN Xp (19177), and 0.9% ahead of the GTX 780 (19164). The Tesla K20m at 19089 is 0.2% ahead of the RTX 4050 Mobile (19049), 0.3% ahead of the RX 6600 (19036), and 0.3% ahead of the Quadro K6000 (19030). Both cards occupy nearly the same performance tier, with the GTX 1060 holding a 1.3% edge over the K20m in average score. The K20m's nearest rival list shows it is 0.4% behind the GTX 780, which is also a rival of the GTX 1060.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear workload-based decision. If your primary API is OpenCL, the GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB is the overwhelming winner. Its 66.3% score advantage in geekbench_opencl is too large to ignore, and its higher average benchmark score (19334 versus 19089) reinforces this. The GTX 1060 also offers display outputs, a lower 120 W TDP, and a single 6-pin power connector, making it far easier to integrate into a standard desktop system.

If your workload uses Vulkan, the Tesla K20m is the better performer by a 20.3% margin. Its 21936 score in geekbench_vulkan shows that the extra shading units and texture units translate into real-world API performance. The K20m also has more memory (5 GB versus 3 GB) and higher bandwidth (208.0 GB/s versus 192.2 GB/s), which could matter for large compute datasets. However, the K20m requires a 550 W PSU, dual power connectors, and has no display outputs, limiting it to dedicated compute systems.

Both cards are end-of-life, so this is a choice for used or legacy hardware. The GTX 1060's launch MSRP was 199 USD, while the K20m's was 3,199 USD, reflecting their different market positions. For a general-purpose card that can game and compute, the GTX 1060 is the practical pick. For a compute-only accelerator with Vulkan-heavy workloads, the K20m delivers the numbers. The 1.3% average score difference between them is negligible, so the benchmark-specific wins should drive your decision.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB has an average benchmark score of 19334, which is 1.3% higher than the Tesla K20m's 19089.

Q: How big is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The GTX 1060 scores 27001 in geekbench_opencl versus the K20m's 16241, giving the GTX 1060 a 66.3% advantage.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The Tesla K20m wins geekbench_vulkan with a score of 21936, which is 20.3% higher than the GTX 1060's 17475.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: The GTX 1060 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, while the K20m has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 208.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 192.2 GB/s.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The GTX 1060 has a 120 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU and one 6-pin connector, while the K20m has a 225 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU and both 6-pin and 8-pin connectors.

Q: Do both cards have display outputs?

A: No. The GTX 1060 has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Tesla K20m has no display outputs at all.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB | NVIDIA Tesla K20m |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |

| Process node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 7,080 million |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor density | 22.0M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1506 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost clock | 1708 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory clock | 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 3 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory bus width | 192 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 208.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1152 | 2496 |

| TMUs | 72 | 208 |

| ROPs | 48 | 40 |

| Pixel rate | 81.98 GPixel/s | 36.71 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 123.0 GTexel/s | 146.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 3.935 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 61.49 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not listed |

| TDP | 120 W | 225 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 550 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| DirectX support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | 250 mm (9.8 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Release date | 2016-08-17 | 2013-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 3,199 USD |