NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm records an average benchmark score of 12,625, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M averages 11,261. The Tesla K20Xm sits at the 52nd percentile among all GPUs, versus the 50th percentile for the GTX 780M.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The GeForce GTX 780M wins the Metal test with a score of 8,319, which is 3.4% higher than the Tesla K20Xm’s 8,035. This is a narrow margin, indicating near parity in that specific workload.

Q: What about the OpenCL test?

A: The Tesla K20Xm dominates the OpenCL test with a score of 17,215, which is 34.8% higher than the GTX 780M’s 12,769. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any recorded benchmark.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175 in the database. They also share OpenGL 4.6 support.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The Tesla K20Xm uses 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, while the GTX 780M uses 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. Both are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla K20Xm delivers 249.6 GB/s over a 384-bit bus, while the GTX 780M provides 160.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus. The Tesla’s bandwidth advantage is roughly 56% higher.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, but they use different chips. The Tesla K20Xm is based on GK110, while the GeForce GTX 780M uses GK104. This is a fundamental distinction: GK110 is a larger, compute-oriented silicon, while GK104 is a smaller, graphics-focused die.

The transistor counts reflect this difference. The K20Xm packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The GTX 780M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million per mm². The K20Xm’s die is nearly twice the size, and its transistor count is exactly double that of the GTX 780M.

The shading unit count scales accordingly. The K20Xm has 2,688 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 780M has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the K20Xm has 75% more shading units, 75% more TMUs, and 50% more ROPs than the GTX 780M.

Clock behavior differs as well. The GTX 780M has a base clock of 771 MHz and a boost clock of 797 MHz. The K20Xm’s base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. However, the memory clock is slightly higher on the K20Xm: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the GTX 780M.

Power consumption is another significant architectural split. The K20Xm has a TDP of 235 W, while the GTX 780M draws only 122 W. The GTX 780M is a mobile MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU, whereas the K20Xm is a dual-slot card with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

The form factors are entirely different: the K20Xm is a 267 mm (10.5 inch) dual-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with no display outputs, while the GTX 780M is an MXM-B (3.0) module with portable-device-dependent outputs. The K20Xm is a compute accelerator with no video output, while the GTX 780M is designed for laptops and mobile workstations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct benchmark comparisons. The results are split evenly, with each card winning one test.

In the Geekbench Metal test, the GeForce GTX 780M scores 8,319 versus the Tesla K20Xm’s 8,035. The delta is -3.4% for the K20Xm, meaning the GTX 780M is 3.4% faster. This is a modest edge, within the range of run-to-run variation for many workloads. The Metal test appears to favor the GTX 780M’s graphics-oriented design, despite its lower raw compute resources.

The Geekbench OpenCL test tells a completely different story. The Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215, while the GTX 780M scores 12,769. The delta is 34.8% in favor of the K20Xm. This is a massive gap, reflecting the K20Xm’s much larger shading unit count and higher memory bandwidth. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and the K20Xm was built for exactly that purpose.

The average benchmark scores (12,625 for the K20Xm, 11,261 for the GTX 780M) are consistent with the OpenCL result dominating the Metal result. The K20Xm’s average is 12.1% higher, but the distribution is uneven: the K20Xm wins big in one test and loses small in the other.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides additional context. The K20Xm’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT at 12,710 (0.7% higher), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 at 12,773 (1.2% higher), the GTX 590 at 12,830 (1.6% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro 455 at 12,831 (1.6% higher). The GTX 780M’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 at 11,228 (0.3% lower), the AMD FirePro W4300 at 11,225 (0.3% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 (1.6% lower). These rivalries show that the K20Xm sits in a slightly higher performance tier than the GTX 780M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category.

• Chip: GK110 (K20Xm) versus GK104 (GTX 780M)
• Generation: Tesla Kepler (Kxx) versus GeForce 700M
• Transistors: 7,080 million versus 3,540 million
• Die Size: 561 mm² versus 294 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.6M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not recorded versus 771 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not recorded versus 797 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 6 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 384 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 249.6 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 2,688 versus 1,536
• TMUs: 224 versus 128
• ROPs: 48 versus 32
• Pixel Rate: 40.99 GPixel/s versus 25.50 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 164.0 GTexel/s versus 102.0 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 3.935 TFLOPS versus 2.448 TFLOPS
• TDP: 235 W versus 122 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus MXM Module
• Power Connectors: Not recorded versus None
• Suggested PSU: 550 W versus Not recorded
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus MXM-B (3.0)
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent
• Dimensions: 267 mm (10.5 inches) length versus Not recorded
• Release Date: 2012-11-11 versus 2013-05-10
• Predecessor: Tesla Fermi versus GeForce 600M
• Successor: Tesla Maxwell versus GeForce 800M
• Launch MSRP: 7,699 USD versus Not recorded

The K20Xm leads in every performance-relevant specification: memory size, bus width, bandwidth, shader count, texture units, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. The GTX 780M counters with a much lower TDP and a mobile form factor. The K20Xm’s FP32 rating of 3.935 TFLOPS is 60.8% higher than the GTX 780M’s 2.448 TFLOPS.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K20Xm wins in compute-heavy workloads, as evidenced by its 34.8% advantage in OpenCL. The card’s larger shader array, wider memory bus, and higher bandwidth make it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU computing, particularly tasks that scale with raw FP32 throughput. The 6 GB memory capacity and 249.6 GB/s bandwidth also support larger datasets than the GTX 780M’s 4 GB and 160.0 GB/s. For applications like scientific simulation, data processing, or any workload using OpenCL, the K20Xm is the stronger performer.

The GeForce GTX 780M wins in the Metal benchmark, which is typically associated with graphics rendering on Apple platforms. Its 3.4% edge in that test is small, but it does indicate that the GTX 780M is not entirely outclassed in every scenario. The GTX 780M also has a decisive advantage in power efficiency: 122 W versus 235 W TDP. For mobile systems, this is critical. The MXM module form factor and lack of external power connectors make it suitable for laptops where the K20Xm’s dual-slot PCIe design would be impossible.

The database’s win count is tied at 1-1, which suggests a balanced head-to-head if you weight both benchmarks equally. However, the magnitude of the K20Xm’s OpenCL victory (34.8%) far exceeds the GTX 780M’s Metal margin (3.4%). In practical terms, the K20Xm delivers a larger performance swing in its favored workload than the GTX 780M does in its own.

For a desktop workstation with adequate power and cooling, the K20Xm is the superior compute card. For a mobile workstation or a system constrained by power and space, the GTX 780M is the only viable option between the two. The K20Xm’s launch MSRP of 7,699 USD reflects its enterprise positioning, whereas the GTX 780M’s price is not recorded in the database. The choice ultimately depends on whether the workload prioritizes raw compute throughput (K20Xm) or mobile compatibility and power efficiency (GTX 780M).