NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 vs NVIDIA Tesla K80 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 and NVIDIA Tesla K80 represent two distinct branches of the same Kepler family, yet their benchmark results and specifications reveal a clear split between consumer graphics and compute-oriented acceleration. Based on the data, the GTX 780 holds a decisive advantage in the available head-to-head tests, while the K80 counters with a substantially larger memory pool and higher shader core count. The following analysis breaks down their architectural differences, performance deltas, and ideal use cases based strictly on the provided facts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head benchmark suite?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 wins both available tests. It scores 22.8% higher than the Tesla K80 in Geekbench OpenCL (22863 vs 18620) and 28.3% higher in Geekbench Vulkan (24514 vs 19111).

Q: How do the two cards compare in average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 780 has an average benchmark score of 19164, placing it in the 64th percentile of all GPUs. The Tesla K80 averages 18866, sitting in the 63rd percentile. The GTX 780 leads by 298 points, or roughly 1.6%.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Tesla K80 offers 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 780 has 3 GB. Both use a 384-bit memory bus, but the GTX 780 has higher memory bandwidth at 288.4 GB/s versus the K80's 240.6 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units and TMUs?

A: The Tesla K80 has 2496 shading units and 208 texture mapping units (TMUs). The GTX 780 has 2304 shading units and 192 TMUs. Despite this, the GTX 780 achieves higher FP32 performance at 4.156 TFLOPS versus 4.113 TFLOPS for the K80.

Q: Are there any display outputs on the Tesla K80?

A: No. The Tesla K80 has no display outputs, while the GTX 780 includes 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: What is the power connector configuration for each card?

A: The GTX 780 uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector with a 250 W TDP and a suggested 600 W power supply. The Tesla K80 uses a single 8-pin connector, has a 300 W TDP, and suggests a 700 W power supply.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on TSMC's 28 nm process and share the same 561 mm² die size, but they employ different chips from the Kepler family. The GTX 780 uses the GK110 chip, while the Tesla K80 uses the GK210 chip. The transistor counts are nearly identical — 7,080 million for the GTX 780 and 7,100 million for the K80 — resulting in a negligible transistor density difference of 12.6M per mm² versus 12.7M per mm².

The architectural naming reflects their divergent paths: the GTX 780 is designated as "Kepler" under the GeForce 700 generation, whereas the Tesla K80 is labeled "Kepler 2.0" within the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation. This generation split explains the feature differences. The K80's GK210 packs 2496 shading units and 208 TMUs, representing a 192-shader and 16-TMU increase over the GTX 780's 2304 units and 192 TMUs. Both cards have 48 ROPs.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The GTX 780 runs at a base clock of 863 MHz with a boost of 902 MHz, significantly higher than the K80's 562 MHz base and 824 MHz boost. This clock advantage is what allows the GTX 780 to edge out the K80 in raw FP32 throughput despite having fewer cores. Memory clocks also favor the GTX 780, which runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the K80's 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), giving the consumer card a higher 288.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 240.6 GB/s.

The API support shows a minor difference in DirectX versions: the GTX 780 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the K80 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both cards list OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175. The K80 lacks any display outputs entirely, confirming its role as a compute-only accelerator, while the GTX 780 provides a full suite of display connections.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780 wins decisively in every direct benchmark comparison available. In Geekbench OpenCL, it posts 22863 against the K80's 18620, a 22.8% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin grows to 28.3%, with the GTX 780 scoring 24514 versus 19111. This makes the GTX 780 the clear choice for any workload captured by these compute APIs, particularly graphics-adjacent tasks that benefit from higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth.

The Tesla K80's advantages lie outside the direct benchmark results. Its 12 GB memory capacity is four times larger than the GTX 780's 3 GB, making it suitable for datasets that exceed the consumer card's frame buffer. The K80 also has more shading units and TMUs, which could theoretically benefit workloads that scale with core count rather than clock speed, though the benchmark data does not confirm this advantage in practice. Its production status as a Tesla generation card with no display outputs positions it for server environments where graphics output is unnecessary.

For general-purpose compute and gaming, the data clearly favors the GTX 780. For memory-bound workloads requiring large datasets, the K80's capacity advantage is its primary selling point, though users must accept lower raw performance in the tests measured.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several key specification fields:

• Chip: GK110 (GTX 780) vs GK210 (K80)
• Architecture: Kepler vs Kepler 2.0
• Generations: GeForce 700 vs Tesla Kepler (Kxx)
• Transistors: 7,080 million vs 7,100 million
• Transistor Density: 12.6M / mm² vs 12.7M / mm²
• Base Clock: 863 MHz vs 562 MHz
• Boost Clock: 902 MHz vs 824 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) vs 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 3 GB vs 12 GB
• Memory Bandwidth: 288.4 GB/s vs 240.6 GB/s
• Shading Units: 2304 vs 2496
• TMUs: 192 vs 208
• FP32 Performance: 4.156 TFLOPS vs 4.113 TFLOPS
• TDP: 250 W vs 300 W
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 600 W vs 700 W
• Display Outputs: 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 vs No outputs
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (11_1)
• Release Date: 2013-05-22 vs 2014-11-16
• Predecessor: GeForce 600 vs Tesla Fermi
• Successor: GeForce 900 vs Tesla Maxwell
• Launch MSRP: 649 USD (GTX 780 only; K80 has no listed MSRP)

Fields that are identical include the 28 nm process node, TSMC foundry, 561 mm² die size, 384-bit memory bus, 48 ROPs, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, dual-slot width, 267 mm length, and OpenGL/Vulkan versions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data provides a stark contrast between the two cards. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 780 scores 22863 against the K80's 18620, yielding a 22.8% advantage for the consumer card. This margin is substantial and reflects the GTX 780's higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth, which more than compensate for the K80's additional 192 shading units.

The Geekbench Vulkan result shows an even larger gap. The GTX 780 achieves 24514, while the K80 manages 19111 — a 28.3% delta in favor of the GTX 780. This suggests that the Vulkan workload benefits disproportionately from the GTX 780's faster memory subsystem and boost clock behavior, or that the K80's architecture is less optimized for this API despite nominally supporting the same Vulkan version.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this trend, with the GTX 780 at 19164 versus the K80's 18866. Interestingly, the GTX 780's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA TITAN Xp (19177, delta -0.1%), NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19089, delta 0.4%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19049, delta 0.6%), and AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19036, delta 0.7%). The K80's nearest rivals are NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18954, delta -0.5%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (18789, delta 0.4%), NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19030, delta -0.9%), and AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19036, delta -0.9%). The GTX 780's average score is nearly identical to the TITAN Xp, while the K80 sits slightly below the RTX 2000 Ada Generation.

The wins tally is unambiguous: the GTX 780 wins 2 benchmarks, and the K80 wins 0. Every measurable performance metric in this comparison places the GTX 780 ahead, making it the stronger performer for the tested workloads. The K80's value proposition rests entirely on its 12 GB memory capacity and compute-oriented design, which the available benchmarks do not directly exploit.