NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 vs NVIDIA Tesla K10 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K10 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 are both end-of-life NVIDIA products, but they represent two distinctly different design philosophies from the company. The K10 is a compute-focused accelerator built on the Kepler architecture, while the GTX 480 is a consumer graphics card based on the older Fermi architecture. Benchmark data from Geekbench OpenCL provides a single, clear point of comparison, showing the K10 scoring 14,029 against the GTX 480’s 13,300. This 5.5% delta in favor of the Tesla card sets the stage for a deeper analysis of how these two GPUs differ and where each one holds an advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance across a range of workloads. In this test, the NVIDIA Tesla K10 achieves a score of 14,029, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 scores 13,300. This gives the K10 a 5.5% lead, a modest but consistent margin that appears across the test’s various subtests. The K10’s victory here is not a blowout, but it is a clear win that establishes the Tesla card as the stronger compute performer in this pairing.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective peer groups reinforces the separation. The K10’s 14,029 score places it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, and it sits within a tight cluster of rivals. Its nearest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680, scores 14,150, which is 0.9% higher than the K10. On the other side, the AMD Radeon RX 570X trails by 1.1%, and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile and AMD Radeon 660M are 1.5% and 1.6% behind, respectively. This suggests the K10 is squarely in the middle of its performance tier, with no single rival holding a decisive edge.

The GTX 480’s 13,300 score lands in the 53rd percentile, slightly lower than the K10’s ranking. Its nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight competition: the AMD Radeon Pro 555X scores 13,321 (0.2% ahead), the AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13,354 (0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 5500M scores 13,356 (0.4% ahead). The AMD Radeon HD 8950M trails by 0.6%. This grouping shows that the GTX 480, despite being an older architecture, still performs competitively within its class, but it does not reach the same level as the K10.

The 5.5% delta between the two cards is the headline number. It indicates that while the GTX 480 is not far behind, the K10 has a measurable advantage in compute workloads. For applications that rely heavily on OpenCL performance, this difference could translate into tangible reductions in processing time. However, the margin is not enormous, meaning the GTX 480 remains a viable option for less demanding tasks, where the performance gap may be imperceptible.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The Tesla K10 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process node allows for a transistor count of 3,540 million on a die size of 294 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The GeForce GTX 480, in contrast, uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also by TSMC. Its 3,100 million transistors are spread across a much larger 529 mm² die, yielding a lower density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The K10’s denser design is a direct consequence of the more advanced manufacturing process, enabling more compute resources in a smaller physical area.

The compute resource allocation differs dramatically. The K10 packs 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The GTX 480, by comparison, has only 480 shading units, 60 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This gives the K10 a massive 3.2x advantage in shading units and a 2.1x advantage in TMUs, while the GTX 480 counters with 1.5x more ROPs. These numbers explain the K10’s higher theoretical throughput: its pixel rate is 23.84 GPixel/s versus 21.03 GPixel/s for the GTX 480, and its texture rate is 95.36 GTexel/s versus 42.06 GTexel/s. The K10’s FP32 performance is listed at 2.289 TFLOPS, compared to 1,345.0 GFLOPS for the GTX 480, a clear indication of the Kepler part’s compute superiority.

Memory configurations also diverge. The K10 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s at a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The GTX 480 offers 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus, achieving a higher bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s at a memory clock of 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective). The GTX 480’s wider bus and higher bandwidth are notable, but the K10’s larger memory capacity is a significant advantage for workloads that require large datasets to reside in GPU memory. The K10’s memory clock is also higher, which partly compensates for the narrower bus.

Architectural features and interfaces further separate the two. The K10 supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 480 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 standard. The K10 has no display outputs, reflecting its compute-only role, whereas the GTX 480 provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs. In terms of API support, both cards list DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K10 additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 480 has no Vulkan support listed. The K10’s power draw is 225 W, lower than the GTX 480’s 250 W, and both require a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connector setup, though the GTX 480 suggests a 600 W PSU versus the K10’s 550 W recommendation.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K10 is the clear winner in raw compute throughput. Its higher FP32 performance, greater shading unit count, and superior texture rate make it the better choice for general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. The 5.5% benchmark lead directly reflects this advantage. Furthermore, the K10’s 4 GB memory capacity is double that of the GTX 480, making it more suitable for workloads with large memory footprints, such as scientific simulations, data processing, or machine learning inference. Its support for newer interfaces like PCIe 3.0 and Vulkan also gives it a forward-looking edge in compatibility.

The GTX 480, despite its age, holds advantages in specific areas. Its wider 384-bit memory bus provides higher memory bandwidth at 177.4 GB/s, which can benefit memory-intensive tasks that are sensitive to bandwidth rather than capacity. The GTX 480 also has more ROPs (48 versus 32), which could translate to better performance in certain pixel-heavy rendering workloads, although its lower pixel rate suggests this is not a decisive factor. The inclusion of display outputs makes the GTX 480 the only viable option for any task requiring video output, as the K10 is a headless compute card.

For gaming, the GTX 480 is the obvious pick, as it is a consumer graphics card with display connectivity, while the K10 has no outputs and is designed for compute. That said, the benchmark data provided does not include gaming tests, so any gaming assessment is qualitative. The GTX 480’s lower TDP of 250 W is actually higher than the K10’s 225 W, so the K10 is more power-efficient in that regard, but the GTX 480’s higher bandwidth could be a draw for certain compute workloads.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Tesla K10 is the superior compute card. It wins the only available benchmark by 5.5%, offers double the memory capacity, and delivers significantly higher theoretical compute metrics in FP32, texture rate, and pixel rate. Its 28 nm process node and Kepler architecture provide better transistor density and efficiency, as evidenced by its lower TDP despite higher performance. For any workload that is purely compute-focused and does not require display output, the K10 is the stronger choice.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480, however, is not without merit. Its higher memory bandwidth, greater ROP count, and display outputs make it a more versatile card for tasks that involve rendering or require video connectivity. It is also a more accessible part for consumer use cases, given its GeForce branding and lower launch MSRP of 499 USD (versus the K10’s 5,099 USD launch MSRP, which is stated here once for reference). The GTX 480’s benchmark score of 13,300, while lower, is still within 5.5% of the K10, meaning the performance gap is not insurmountable for less demanding applications.

In summary, the choice depends on the use case. If the priority is maximum compute performance and memory capacity, the Tesla K10 is the data-backed winner. If the priority is bandwidth, rendering features, or the ability to connect to a display, the GTX 480 is the better fit, despite its lower compute score. The K10 is the compute specialist; the GTX 480 is the generalist.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K10 scores 14,029, which is 5.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480’s score of 13,300.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Tesla K10 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 480 has 1536 MB (1.5 GB) of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 performance?

A: The Tesla K10 delivers 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, whereas the GTX 480 delivers 1,345.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the GTX 480 support Vulkan?

A: No, the GTX 480 does not list Vulkan support. The Tesla K10 supports Vulkan version 1.2.175.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 480 has a higher memory bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s, compared to the K10’s 160.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for these cards?

A: The Tesla K10 has a TDP of 225 W, while the GTX 480 has a TDP of 250 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla K10 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Chip | GK104 | GF100 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1536 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 177.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 480 |

| TMUs | 128 | 60 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.84 GPixel/s | 21.03 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 95.36 GTexel/s | 42.06 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.289 TFLOPS | 1,345.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 225 W | 250 W |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | None |

| Release Date | 2012-04-30 | 2010-03-25 |