NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 has an average benchmark score of 13,189, while the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm scores 12,625. The GTX 950 leads by approximately 4.5% in this aggregate metric.

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

A: The Tesla K20Xm wins the Metal benchmark with a score of 8,035 versus the GTX 950’s 7,172, a 10.7% advantage for the Tesla card.

Q: What is the difference in OpenCL performance?

A: The Tesla K20Xm again takes the lead in OpenCL, scoring 17,215 against the GTX 950’s 15,662. This represents a 9% delta favoring the Tesla.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Tesla K20Xm has 2,688 shading units, compared to 768 on the GTX 950. This is a substantial difference in compute resource allocation.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GTX 950 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 105.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla K20Xm has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 249.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 950 shows a transistor density of 12.9M per mm², slightly higher than the Tesla K20Xm’s 12.6M per mm², despite both being built on the same 28 nm TSMC process.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct NVIDIA architectures separated by a full generation of design philosophy. The GeForce GTX 950 is built on the GM206 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the Tesla K20Xm uses the GK110 chip with Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts diverge dramatically. The GTX 950 packs 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.9M per mm². The Tesla K20Xm integrates 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, with a density of 12.6M per mm². The Tesla’s die is nearly two and a half times larger in area and contains well over twice as many transistors.

Compute resources differ fundamentally. The GTX 950 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla K20Xm fields 2,688 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This means the Tesla has 3.5 times the shading units and 4.7 times the texture units of the GTX 950.

Clock speeds tell another part of the story. The GTX 950 runs at a base clock of 1024 MHz with a boost of 1188 MHz. The Tesla K20Xm has no listed base or boost clocks in the data, which is typical for compute-focused cards that often run at fixed rates. The memory clocks also differ: the GTX 950 operates at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) while the Tesla runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective).

API support shows generational differences. The GTX 950 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla K20Xm supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 950’s higher DirectX feature level reflects its Maxwell 2.0 design, while the Tesla’s Kepler architecture tops out at the 11_0 feature level.

The Tesla K20Xm has no display outputs, confirming its role as a compute accelerator. The GTX 950 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Physical dimensions also differ: the GTX 950 measures 202 mm (8 inches) in length, while the Tesla K20Xm stretches to 267 mm (10.5 inches).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison contains only two benchmark entries, and the Tesla K20Xm wins both. In the Geekbench Metal test, the Tesla scores 8,035 against the GTX 950’s 7,172. This yields a delta of 10.7% in favor of the Tesla. The OpenCL test shows a similar pattern: Tesla scores 17,215, GTX 950 scores 15,662, for a 9% advantage.

These results are notable because the GTX 950 has a higher average benchmark score overall (13,189 vs 12,625) despite losing both individual tests. This suggests the GTX 950’s aggregate score is bolstered by its third benchmark result — the Geekbench Vulkan score of 16,734 — which has no corresponding Tesla entry. The Tesla K20Xm lacks a Vulkan benchmark score in the data, so its average is computed from only the Metal and OpenCL results.

The percentile rankings place both cards close together: the GTX 950 sits at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla K20Xm sits at the 52nd percentile. This near-parity in percentile ranking is consistent with their similar average scores, despite the Tesla’s outright wins in the shared benchmarks.

When looking at nearest rivals, the GTX 950’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480, which scores 13,300 — a 0.8% delta from the GTX 950’s 13,189. The Tesla K20Xm’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT at 12,710, a 0.7% delta from its 12,625. Both cards sit in a competitive cluster where single-digit percentage differences separate them from their peers.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. Memory capacity is a clear differentiator: the GTX 950 has 2 GB, while the Tesla K20Xm has 6 GB. Memory bus width follows suit: 128-bit for the GTX 950 versus 384-bit for the Tesla. Memory bandwidth shows a 2.4x gap, with the Tesla delivering 249.6 GB/s against the GTX 950’s 105.8 GB/s.

Compute throughput metrics favor the Tesla decisively. The Tesla K20Xm delivers 3.935 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 950 manages 1.825 TFLOPS — the Tesla is roughly 2.2x faster in raw floating-point throughput. Texture rate tells a similar story: 164.0 GTexel/s for the Tesla versus 57.02 GTexel/s for the GTX 950. Pixel rates are closer, with the Tesla at 40.99 GPixel/s and the GTX 950 at 38.02 GPixel/s.

Power and thermal specifications diverge substantially. The GTX 950 has a TDP of 90 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Tesla K20Xm has a TDP of 235 W and requires a 550 W PSU. Both cards are dual-slot designs, but the GTX 950 uses a single 6-pin power connector while the Tesla lists no power connector specifications.

Release timing separates them by nearly three years. The Tesla K20Xm launched on November 11, 2012, while the GTX 950 arrived on August 19, 2015. Their production status is identical — both are end-of-life. The launch MSRP differs enormously: the GTX 950 launched at 159 USD, while the Tesla K20Xm launched at 7,699 USD.

Physical dimensions differ, with the GTX 950 at 202 mm (8 inches) and the Tesla at 267 mm (10.5 inches). The GTX 950 has display outputs; the Tesla has none. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K20Xm wins in every head-to-head benchmark where both have scores. Its 10.7% Metal advantage and 9% OpenCL advantage indicate better raw compute performance in these APIs. The Tesla’s 3.935 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 6 GB memory capacity, and 249.6 GB/s bandwidth position it as the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads such as scientific simulation, data processing, or any task that leverages OpenCL or Metal directly.

The GTX 950 wins the aggregate average benchmark score race with 13,189 versus 12,625. This is partly due to its Vulkan score of 16,734, which has no Tesla counterpart. The GTX 950’s lower TDP (90 W vs 235 W) and smaller physical footprint (202 mm vs 267 mm) make it the more practical choice for systems with power or space constraints. Its display outputs and support for DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the Tesla’s 12 (11_0) make it the better fit for gaming or any visual output scenario.

The GTX 950 also holds advantages in transistor density (12.9M vs 12.6M per mm²) and higher memory clock speed (6.6 Gbps effective vs 5.2 Gbps). Its Vulkan 1.4 support exceeds the Tesla’s Vulkan 1.2.175, making it the better option for modern Vulkan-based applications.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on workload type. For compute-focused tasks that leverage OpenCL or Metal, the Tesla K20Xm is the stronger performer, winning both shared benchmarks with double-digit percentage margins. Its 6 GB memory capacity and 249.6 GB/s bandwidth provide substantial headroom for large datasets, and its 3.935 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than double the GTX 950’s 1.825 TFLOPS.

For general-purpose use, gaming, or any task requiring display output, the GTX 950 is the logical choice. It offers display connectors, DirectX 12 (12_1) support, Vulkan 1.4 compatibility, and a much lower power footprint at 90 W versus 235 W. Its average benchmark score of 13,189 exceeds the Tesla’s 12,625, and its Vulkan performance (16,734) demonstrates capability in modern graphics APIs.

The launch MSRP difference is stark — 159 USD for the GTX 950 versus 7,699 USD for the Tesla K20Xm — but both are end-of-life products, so current market pricing would depend on availability. The Tesla’s lack of display outputs makes it unsuitable for desktop use without a secondary GPU. The GTX 950’s smaller size and lower power requirements make it easier to integrate into standard systems.

Buyers needing compute acceleration for OpenCL or Metal workloads should favor the Tesla K20Xm based on its benchmark wins. Users who need a functional graphics card with modern API support and lower power consumption should choose the GTX 950. The aggregate scores show the GTX 950 as the better-rounded card, but the Tesla’s compute dominance in shared benchmarks is unambiguous.