NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a decisive result. The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 scores 12,830. This represents a 25.5% advantage for the Tesla K20Xm. The deltaPct of -25.5 is listed from the perspective of the GTX 590, meaning the older Fermi card trails by more than a quarter of its own score.

This gap matters in context. The GTX 590's nearest rivals in the overall database include the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12,831, a 0% delta), the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847, -0.1%), and the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870, -0.3%). The GTX 590 sits squarely in a cluster of mid-range mobile and workstation parts from a much later era. The Tesla K20Xm, meanwhile, has nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710, -0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12,773, -1.2%), and the GTX 590 itself (12,830, -1.6%). Curiously, the Tesla K20Xm's average benchmark score across all tests is 12,625, which is actually lower than the GTX 590's average of 12,830. This is because the Tesla's average includes its Metal score of 8,035, which drags the combined figure down. The OpenCL result, however, is the one where the Tesla shines.

The wins tally reflects this: the Tesla K20Xm wins 1 head-to-head benchmark, while the GTX 590 wins 0. There is no scenario in the data where the GTX 590 comes out ahead. The only test that compares both cards directly is OpenCL, and it is not close.

# Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the benchmark data, the Tesla K20Xm wins in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 17,215 versus 12,830 means that for any workload that leverages OpenCL—which typically includes scientific simulation, data processing, and compute-oriented rendering—the Tesla is the superior choice by a wide margin. The 25.5% delta is not a marginal edge; it is a substantial performance tier separation.

The GTX 590, however, has a different kind of advantage. Its average benchmark score of 12,830 is actually higher than the Tesla's average of 12,625. This is because the Tesla K20Xm also carries a Geekbench Metal score of 8,035, which is significantly lower than its OpenCL result. The GTX 590 has no Metal score listed, meaning its entire benchmark profile is built on that single OpenCL number. For a user looking at aggregate performance across multiple test suites, the GTX 590 appears more consistent—but this is an artifact of having fewer tests, not a true performance parity.

In terms of use cases, the Tesla K20Xm is positioned for compute-heavy environments where OpenCL performance dominates. Its 6 GB memory capacity and higher bandwidth (249.6 GB/s) suggest it can handle larger datasets without spilling to system memory. The GTX 590, with 1,536 MB of memory and 164.0 GB/s bandwidth, is more limited in this regard. The data does not include gaming benchmarks, so any claim about gaming superiority would be speculation. What the data does show is that the Tesla wins the only compute test available, and it does so decisively.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark, representing two distinct generations of NVIDIA GPU design. The GTX 590 uses the GF110 chip, built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process. The Tesla K20Xm uses the GK110 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. This process shrink is significant: the Tesla packs 7,080 million transistors onto a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The GTX 590, by contrast, has 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, for a density of 5.8 million per square millimeter. The Kepler chip more than doubles the transistor density, which explains how it achieves such a large compute advantage.

The shading unit count tells a similar story. The GTX 590 has 512 shading units, while the Tesla K20Xm has 2,688—more than five times as many. Texture mapping units follow the same pattern: 64 on the GTX 590 versus 224 on the Tesla. Both cards have 48 ROPs, so pixel output is identical in hardware terms. Yet the pixel rate differs: the Tesla achieves 40.99 GPixel/s versus 19.46 GPixel/s for the GTX 590. This discrepancy is due to clock speeds and memory bandwidth, not ROP count. The Tesla's texture rate of 164.0 GTexel/s is also more than four times the GTX 590's 38.91 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute is where the Kepler architecture truly flexes. The Tesla K20Xm delivers 3.935 TFLOPS, while the GTX 590 manages 1,244.2 GFLOPS (approximately 1.24 TFLOPS). That is a 3.2x raw compute advantage for the Tesla. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so this is purely raster and compute silicon. The API support differs slightly: both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Tesla additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 590 has no Vulkan support listed.

# Specification Differences

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The GTX 590 has 1,536 MB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, running at 854 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective), yielding 164.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla K20Xm has 6 GB of GDDR5 on the same 384-bit bus width, but at 1,300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), yielding 249.6 GB/s. That is 4x the capacity and 52% more bandwidth.

Power and cooling also diverge. The GTX 590 has a 365 W TDP, requires a 750 W suggested PSU, and draws power through two 8-pin connectors. The Tesla K20Xm has a 235 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU, with no power connector details listed. Both are dual-slot cards. The GTX 590 measures 279 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Tesla is slightly shorter at 267 mm, with no height or width dimensions provided.

The bus interface differs: the GTX 590 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Tesla K20Xm uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are another major split. The GTX 590 has 3x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort, making it a functional graphics card for multi-monitor setups. The Tesla K20Xm has no display outputs at all—it is a compute-only accelerator. This is a critical distinction for any potential buyer: the GTX 590 can drive a desktop, while the Tesla cannot.

Release timing places the GTX 590 in March 2011 and the Tesla K20Xm in November 2012. The GTX 590's predecessor is the GeForce 400 series and its successor is the GeForce 600 series. The Tesla's predecessor is Tesla Fermi and its successor is Tesla Maxwell. Both are end-of-life products.

# FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 25.5% higher than the GTX 590's 12,830.

Q: Does the GTX 590 beat the Tesla K20Xm in any benchmark?

A: No. The data shows the Tesla K20Xm wins the only head-to-head benchmark (OpenCL) with a deltaPct of -25.5 from the GTX 590's perspective. The wins tally is 0 for the GTX 590 and 1 for the Tesla.

Q: Why is the Tesla K20Xm's average benchmark score lower than the GTX 590's?

A: The Tesla K20Xm has two benchmark results: 17,215 in OpenCL and 8,035 in Metal, which average to 12,625. The GTX 590 has only one result (12,830 in OpenCL), so its average is that single score.

Q: Can the Tesla K20Xm output video to a display?

A: No. The Tesla K20Xm has no display outputs, while the GTX 590 has 3x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The Tesla K20Xm's GK110 chip has 7,080 million transistors, compared to 3,000 million on the GTX 590's GF110 chip. The Kepler chip also uses a 28 nm process versus 40 nm for Fermi.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla K20Xm has 249.6 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to 164.0 GB/s on the GTX 590. The Tesla also has 6 GB of memory versus 1,536 MB on the GTX 590.

# The Verdict

The data makes one thing clear: the Tesla K20Xm is the superior compute product. Its OpenCL score of 17,215 versus 12,830 represents a 25.5% performance advantage, and it wins the only direct benchmark comparison. The architecture is newer, the transistor count is more than double, and the memory subsystem is significantly larger and faster. For any workload that runs on OpenCL, the Tesla K20Xm is the obvious choice.

The GTX 590, however, is not without its own rationale. It has display outputs, which the Tesla entirely lacks. It also has a higher average benchmark score (12,830 versus 12,625) because the Tesla's Metal score of 8,035 pulls its average down. If a user needs a card that can both render to a screen and perform compute tasks, the GTX 590 is the only one of the two that can do both. Additionally, the GTX 590's nearest rivals in the database—the AMD Radeon Pro 455, AMD FirePro W5100, and AMD Radeon 740M—are all within 0.3% of its score, indicating it sits in a competitive performance tier for its era.

The Tesla K20Xm's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670, which are both within 1.2% of its average score. This suggests the Tesla's average performance is not exceptional, but its OpenCL peak is far ahead. The GTX 590's single benchmark result is its entire story, while the Tesla has a split personality: excellent in OpenCL, mediocre in Metal.

For a compute-focused buyer, the Tesla K20Xm is the clear pick. The 25.5% OpenCL advantage, 6 GB memory capacity, and 249.6 GB/s bandwidth make it the better accelerator. For a user who needs a graphics card with display outputs and is willing to accept lower compute performance, the GTX 590 is the only viable option. The Tesla cannot drive a monitor, and the GTX 590 cannot match the Tesla's compute throughput. The choice comes down to whether the workload requires a screen or pure number-crunching power.