NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 vs NVIDIA Tesla K80 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K80 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 are both end-of-life products from NVIDIA, yet they represent two very different philosophies from the Kepler era. The Tesla K80 is a compute-oriented accelerator built for data centers, while the GTX 690 is a dual-GPU enthusiast graphics card aimed at high-end desktop gaming. Benchmark data from the database reveals a clear performance gap between the two, but the story is more nuanced than raw scores alone. Below, the recorded measurements and specifications are examined to understand what each card excels at and where the data points lead.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes two benchmark tests for these cards: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the Tesla K80 emerges as the winner. In the OpenCL test, the Tesla K80 scores 18,620 points, while the GTX 690 scores 17,399 points. That is a 7% advantage for the Tesla K80. The Vulkan test shows a larger gap: the Tesla K80 scores 19,111 points, against 16,675 points for the GTX 690, a 14.6% lead. Across both tests, the Tesla K80 records 2 wins and the GTX 690 records 0 wins.

Looking at the average benchmark score, the Tesla K80 sits at 18,866 points, which places it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GTX 690 has an average score of 17,037 points, putting it in the 60th percentile. The Tesla K80’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (average score 18,789, delta -0.4%), the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954, delta -0.5%), the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19,030, delta -0.9%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, delta -0.9%). The GTX 690’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17,019, delta 0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (17,083, delta -0.3%), the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16,932, delta 0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (17,208, delta -1%). These deltas are small, indicating that both cards sit in a narrow performance band relative to their immediate competitors.

The Vulkan test is particularly telling. The Tesla K80’s 14.6% advantage over the GTX 690 in Vulkan suggests that the compute-oriented design of the Tesla K80 translates well into modern API workloads. OpenCL also favors the Tesla K80, but the margin is smaller, which hints that the GTX 690’s higher clock speeds can partially compensate for its lower compute resources in certain OpenCL tasks.

Architecture Differences

The Tesla K80 is built on the GK210 chip, which is part of NVIDIA’s Kepler 2.0 architecture, falling under the Tesla Kepler generation. The GTX 690 uses the GK104 chip, based on the original Kepler architecture, under the GeForce 600 generation. Both chips are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Tesla K80 packs 7,100 million transistors on a die size of 561 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.7 million transistors per mm². The GTX 690, by contrast, has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million transistors per mm². The Tesla K80’s die is nearly twice the size of the GTX 690’s, which reflects its different purpose.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Tesla K80 offers 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 240.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 690 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla K80’s memory capacity is six times larger, and its bandwidth is about 25% higher. This makes the Tesla K80 far better suited for large datasets, while the GTX 690’s smaller memory pool is typical of a gaming card from its era.

The compute resources also differ. The Tesla K80 has 2,496 shading units, 208 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 raster operations units (ROPs). The GTX 690 has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla K80’s shading unit count is over 60% higher, which directly contributes to its higher compute throughput. Pixel rate for the Tesla K80 is 42.85 GPixel/s, versus 32.61 GPixel/s for the GTX 690. Texture rate is 171.4 GTexel/s for the Tesla K80, compared to 130.4 GTexel/s for the GTX 690. The Tesla K80’s FP32 performance is 4.113 TFLOPS, while the GTX 690 reaches 3.130 TFLOPS. Neither card supports FP16 or ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as those features came later.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The GTX 690 runs at a base clock of 915 MHz and a boost clock of 1019 MHz, while the Tesla K80 operates at a much lower 562 MHz base and 824 MHz boost. The GTX 690’s memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Tesla K80’s memory is at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Despite lower clocks, the Tesla K80’s larger memory bus and higher core count allow it to outperform the GTX 690 in the recorded benchmarks.

Power and cooling requirements are identical in one respect: both cards have a TDP of 300 W and a suggested PSU of 700 W. The Tesla K80 uses a single 8-pin power connector, while the GTX 690 requires two 8-pin connectors. Both are dual-slot designs. Physical dimensions differ slightly: the Tesla K80 is 267 mm long (10.5 inches), while the GTX 690 is 279 mm long (11 inches), with a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches) and a width of 38 mm (1.5 inches). The GTX 690 has display outputs (3x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2), whereas the Tesla K80 has no display outputs, confirming its role as a compute-only accelerator.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows the Tesla K80 wins both benchmark tests, so in raw compute performance, it is the clear leader. The Vulkan score advantage of 14.6% is substantial and suggests the Tesla K80 handles modern compute workloads more efficiently, likely due to its higher shading unit count and larger memory pool. The OpenCL advantage of 7% is more modest but still consistent. For tasks like scientific computing, machine learning inference, or any workload that relies on massive parallel processing and large memory buffers, the Tesla K80 is the better choice.

The GTX 690, despite losing both benchmarks, has its own strengths based on the recorded specifications. Its higher base and boost clocks (915 MHz and 1019 MHz versus 562 MHz and 824 MHz) mean that for latency-sensitive or clock-bound tasks, it could respond faster. The GTX 690 also has display outputs, so it can drive monitors directly, while the Tesla K80 cannot. For gaming, the GTX 690’s architecture and clock speeds are more aligned with that use case, even if its 2 GB memory is limited by modern standards. The GTX 690’s smaller die and lower transistor count also imply lower manufacturing complexity, but the database does not include any power efficiency metrics beyond TDP, which is the same for both.

In terms of API support, both cards support DirectX 12, but the Tesla K80 supports version 12 (11_1), while the GTX 690 supports 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Tesla K80’s slightly higher DirectX feature level may matter for certain compute applications, but for gaming, the difference is negligible.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K80 has an average benchmark score of 18,866, compared to 17,037 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690.

Q: How much faster is the Tesla K80 in Vulkan?

A: The Tesla K80 scores 19,111 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 690 scores 16,675, giving the Tesla K80 a 14.6% advantage.

Q: Do both cards have the same power consumption?

A: Yes, both have a TDP of 300 W and a suggested PSU of 700 W, but the Tesla K80 uses a single 8-pin connector, while the GTX 690 uses two 8-pin connectors.

Q: What is the memory size difference?

A: The Tesla K80 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 690 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Does the GTX 690 support display outputs?

A: Yes, the GTX 690 has 3x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Tesla K80 has no display outputs.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The Tesla K80 has 7,100 million transistors, while the GTX 690 has 3,540 million transistors.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields. The chip is different: GK210 for the Tesla K80, GK104 for the GTX 690. The architecture is Kepler 2.0 for the Tesla K80 and Kepler for the GTX 690. The generation is Tesla Kepler (Kxx) for the Tesla K80 and GeForce 600 for the GTX 690. The process node is the same at 28 nm, and the foundry is TSMC for both.

Transistors: 7,100 million versus 3,540 million. Die size: 561 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density: 12.7M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm². Base clock: 562 MHz versus 915 MHz. Boost clock: 824 MHz versus 1019 MHz. Memory clock: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Memory size: 12 GB versus 2 GB. Memory bus width: 384 bit versus 256 bit. Memory bandwidth: 240.6 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s.

Shading units: 2,496 versus 1,536. TMUs: 208 versus 128. ROPs: 48 versus 32. Pixel rate: 42.85 GPixel/s versus 32.61 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 171.4 GTexel/s versus 130.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.113 TFLOPS versus 3.130 TFLOPS. TDP is the same at 300 W. Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus 2x 8-pin. Slot width is dual-slot for both. Suggested PSU is 700 W for both. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for both.

Display outputs: none for the Tesla K80, 3x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the GTX 690. DirectX version: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0). OpenGL is 4.6 for both, Vulkan is 1.2.175 for both. Dimensions: the Tesla K80 is 267 mm long, the GTX 690 is 279 mm long, 111 mm high, and 38 mm wide. Release dates differ: the Tesla K80 launched on 2014-11-16, while the GTX 690 launched on 2012-05-02. The predecessor for the Tesla K80 is Tesla Fermi, and its successor is Tesla Maxwell. The GTX 690’s predecessor is GeForce 500, and its successor is GeForce 700. The GTX 690 has a launch MSRP of 999 USD, while the Tesla K80 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Tesla K80 is the superior performer in compute benchmarks. It wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, with margins of 7% and 14.6%, respectively. Its higher shading unit count, larger memory capacity, and wider memory bus give it a clear edge in throughput-oriented workloads. The Tesla K80’s percentile ranking of 63, versus 60 for the GTX 690, reinforces this conclusion.

Who should pick the Tesla K80? Anyone running compute-heavy tasks that benefit from parallel processing and large memory buffers. The 12 GB memory capacity and 240.6 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for data analysis, scientific simulations, or any workload where dataset size exceeds the 2 GB limit of the GTX 690. The lack of display outputs is not a drawback in a server or compute environment.

Who should pick the GTX 690? Users who need a card with display outputs and higher clock speeds. The GTX 690’s base clock of 915 MHz and boost clock of 1019 MHz are significantly higher than the Tesla K80’s, which could translate to better responsiveness in interactive or latency-sensitive applications. Its smaller footprint and lower transistor count may also make it easier to integrate into a desktop system, though the database does not provide direct evidence for that beyond the physical dimensions. For gaming or desktop use, the GTX 690 is the only option of the two, since the Tesla K80 cannot output video.

The data does not indicate that the GTX 690 wins any benchmark, so for pure computational performance, the Tesla K80 is the unambiguous choice. The GTX 690’s strengths lie in its clock speeds and display support, which are not captured in the compute-focused benchmark results. Ultimately, the decision hinges on whether the user prioritizes compute throughput or desktop usability.