NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20c Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data separates these two NVIDIA cards by a single OpenCL workload, and the results are counterintuitive given their positioning. The GeForce GTX 480, a consumer Fermi part from 2010, posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 13,300, while the Tesla K20c, a compute-oriented Kepler accelerator from 2012, scores 11,479. That is a 15.9% advantage for the GTX 480 in the sole head-to-head test. The GTX 480 also sits at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Tesla K20c sits at the 51st percentile. Neither card is near the top of the charts; both land in the lower-middle range of the overall distribution.

For a user choosing strictly on this data, the GTX 480 is the better pick for OpenCL workloads as measured by Geekbench. It outperforms the Tesla K20c by a meaningful margin and does so with a lower launch MSRP, 499 USD versus the Tesla K20c's 3,199 USD. However, the Tesla K20c is not without its own rationale. It offers more memory, 5 GB versus 1536 MB, a higher memory bandwidth of 208.0 GB/s versus 177.4 GB/s, and a much higher FP32 throughput of 3.524 TFLOPS versus 1,345.0 GFLOPS. A user who needs large datasets in GPU memory or who targets raw floating-point compute may prefer the Tesla, even though the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that advantage.

The GTX 480 also has display outputs, 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the Tesla K20c has no outputs at all. That makes the GTX 480 the only viable option for a workstation that must drive a monitor. The Tesla K20c is a compute-only accelerator. For a desktop user who wants a single card for both compute and display, the GTX 480 is the clear choice. For a compute node where display output is irrelevant, the Tesla K20c's larger memory pool and higher FP32 rating are the only data points in its favor, but they do not translate into a win in the recorded OpenCL test.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 scores 13,300, which is 15.9% higher than the Tesla K20c's 11,479.

Q: Does the Tesla K20c have any memory advantage over the GTX 480?

A: Yes. The Tesla K20c has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 208.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 480 has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 177.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card is better for driving a display?

A: The GTX 480, because it has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs. The Tesla K20c has no display outputs.

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw FP32 compute?

A: The Tesla K20c is rated at 3.524 TFLOPS, which is more than double the GTX 480's 1,345.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each card?

A: The GTX 480 is at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, and the Tesla K20c is at the 51st percentile.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Tesla K20c has a transistor density of 12.6M per mm², while the GTX 480 has 5.9M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different manufacturing nodes. The GTX 480 uses the GF100 chip built on Fermi architecture and a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The Tesla K20c uses the GK110 chip built on Kepler architecture and a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a density of 12.6M per mm². The Kepler part is the newer design, with more than twice the transistor count and a higher density on a slightly larger die.

The shading unit counts differ dramatically. The GTX 480 has 480 shading units, 60 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Tesla K20c has 2,496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. That is more than five times the shader count and more than three times the texture units for the Kepler card. The pixel rate tells a different story: the GTX 480 achieves 21.03 GPixel/s, while the Tesla K20c achieves 36.71 GPixel/s. The texture rate is also higher on the Tesla, at 146.8 GTexel/s versus 42.06 GTexel/s.

The memory architecture is not just a capacity difference. The GTX 480 uses a 384-bit bus, while the Tesla K20c uses a 320-bit bus. The Tesla compensates with a higher memory clock, 1300 MHz or 5.2 Gbps effective, versus 924 MHz or 3.7 Gbps effective on the GTX 480. The result is a bandwidth of 208.0 GB/s for the Tesla versus 177.4 GB/s for the GTX 480. The API support is nearly identical, with both cards listing DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Tesla K20c also lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the GTX 480 lists no Vulkan support.

The production status for both cards is end-of-life. The GTX 480 was released on 2010-03-25 and sits in the GeForce 400 generation, with a predecessor in the GeForce 200 series and a successor in the GeForce 500 series. The Tesla K20c was released on 2012-11-11 in the Tesla Kepler (Kxx generation, with a predecessor in Tesla Fermi and a successor in Tesla Maxwell. The slot width is dual-slot for both, and both use the same power connectors, 1x 6-pin plus 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin. The suggested PSU is 600 W for the GTX 480 and 550 W for the Tesla K20c. The length is 267 mm, or 10.5 inches, for both cards.

Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores listed. Neither has a base clock, boost clock, or game clock in the recorded data. Both use the PCIe 2.0 x16 bus interface. The GTX 480 has a 250 W TDP, while the Tesla K20c has a 225 W TDP. The Tesla card is actually the lower-power card of the two, despite being the older design.

The transistor density difference is one of the starkest architectural contrasts. The Kepler architecture on the Tesla K20c is built for compute density, with 12.6M transistors per mm², a figure that dwarfs the Fermi part's 5.9M per mm². The GTX 480's 3,100 million transistors on 40 nm is an older, less dense design, while the Tesla's 7,080 million transistors on 28 nm represents a major architectural step forward in raw hardware resources. Yet in the recorded OpenCL test, that hardware does not deliver a higher score.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows a clear split between the two cards. The chip, architecture, generation, process node, transistor count, die size, and transistor density all differ. The GTX 480 uses GF100 on Fermi, GeForce 400 generation, 40 nm, 3,100 million transistors, 529 mm², and 5.9M per mm². The Tesla K20c uses GK110 on Kepler, Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation, 28 nm, 7,080 million transistors, 561 mm², and 12.6M per mm².

Memory clock speeds differ: 924 MHz or 3.7 Gbps effective for the GTX 480 versus 1300 MHz or 5.2 Gbps effective for the Tesla K20c. Memory size differs: 1536 MB versus 5 GB. Bus width differs: 384 bit versus 320 bit. Bandwidth differs: 177.4 GB/s versus 208.0 GB/s. Shading units differ: 480 versus 2,496. TMUs differ: 60 versus 208. ROPs differ: 48 versus 40. Pixel rate differs: 21.03 GPixel/s versus 36.71 GPixel/s. Texture rate differs: 42.06 GTexel/s versus 146.8 GTexel/s. FP32 differs: 1,345.0 GFLOPS versus 3.524 TFLOPS. TDP differs: 250 W versus 225 W. Suggested PSU differs: 600 W versus 550 W. Display outputs differ: 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a versus no outputs. Vulkan support differs: none listed versus 1.2.175. Release date differs: 2010-03-25 versus 2012-11-11. Launch MSRP differs: 499 USD versus 3,199 USD. Predecessor and successor differ: GeForce 200 and GeForce 500 for the GTX 480, Tesla Fermi and Tesla Maxwell for the Tesla K20c.

The fields that match include the manufacturer, NVIDIA for both; the foundry, TSMC for both; the slot width, dual-slot for both; the power connectors, 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin for both; the bus interface, PCIe 2.0 x16 for both; DirectX and OpenGL versions, 12 (11_0) and 4.6 for both; dimensions, 267 mm or 10.5 inches for both; and production status, end-of-life for both. Neither card has base, boost, or game clocks, and neither has RT cores or tensor cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 480 scores 13,300, and the Tesla K20c scores 11,479. The GTX 480 wins with a delta of 15.9%. That is a substantial margin in a single test, and it flips the expected outcome based on the specification sheet. The Tesla K20c has more shading units, more memory, higher bandwidth, and more than double the FP32 throughput, yet it trails by nearly 16% in this workload.

Context from the nearest rivals in the database makes the GTX 480's score more meaningful. The GTX 480 sits within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon HD 8950M, which scores 13,376, and within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, which scores 13,356. It is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro M6100 at 13,354 and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X at 13,321, trailing that card by just 0.2%. The Tesla K20c, by contrast, sits within 1.9% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, which scores 11,261 and beats the Tesla by that margin. The Tesla trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 by 1.7%, the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT by 1.3%, and the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M by 0.4%.

The percentage differences to rivals are small for both cards, but the direction matters. The GTX 480 is slightly behind four AMD cards, with deltas ranging from -0.2% to -0.6%. The Tesla K20c is slightly behind three rivals, with deltas from -0.4% to -1.7%, and ahead of one rival, the GTX 780M, by 1.9%. Neither card is a standout in its peer group, but the GTX 480's peer group sits at a higher absolute score level, around 13,300 to 13,376, while the Tesla's peer group sits around 11,261 to 11,680.

The wins tally is one to zero in favor of the GTX 480. That is the entire head-to-head record in the database. The Tesla K20c has no recorded benchmark win against the GTX 480. For a buyer comparing these two specific cards, the OpenCL result is the only direct measurement available, and it favors the older, cheaper consumer card.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 480 wins the only benchmark where the two are directly compared. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it leads by 15.9%, and that is the defining data point for this pairing. It also wins on practical usability: it has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs, so it can drive a display, while the Tesla K20c has no outputs. It also wins on TDP, drawing 250 W versus 225 W for the Tesla, which is counterintuitive given the Tesla's larger compute resources, but the recorded data lists the Tesla as the lower-power card. The GTX 480 is also the card with the higher percentile ranking, at 53 versus 51 for the Tesla.

The Tesla K20c wins on raw specification grounds, even though it loses the benchmark. It has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory, more than three times the GTX 480's 1536 MB. It has 208.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 177.4 GB/s. It has 2,496 shading units versus 480. It has 208 TMUs versus 60. It has an FP32 rating of 3.524 TFLOPS versus 1,345.0 GFLOPS. It has a higher pixel rate, 36.71 GPixel/s versus 21.03 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate, 146.8 GTexel/s versus 42.06 GTexel/s. It also has a higher transistor density, 12.6M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm², and a higher transistor count, 7,080 million versus 3,100 million. Its memory clock is higher, 1300 MHz or 5.2 Gbps effective versus 924 MHz or 3.7 Gbps effective. It supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 480 lists no Vulkan support. It was released later, 2012-11-11 versus 2010-03-25, and it has a lower TDP, 225 W versus 250 W.

The use-case split follows the data. For a desktop workstation that needs OpenCL compute and must also output video, the GTX 480 is the only option that satisfies both requirements. Its benchmark win and display outputs make it the practical choice for a single-card setup. For a compute node without any display requirement, the Tesla K20c offers a larger memory pool, higher bandwidth, and a much higher FP32 rating, which could matter for workloads that fit within its 5 GB capacity and that scale with raw floating-point throughput. The recorded OpenCL test does not reward those specifications, but the specifications are the only advantages the Tesla holds in this comparison. The GTX 480 wins the measured performance race, while the Tesla K20c wins the specification race. The buyer's choice depends on whether the workload in question looks like the Geekbench OpenCL test or like a memory-bound or FP32-bound compute job.