NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A represent two distinct design philosophies from the same manufacturer, separated by roughly two and a half years of architectural evolution. The data available for direct comparison is limited to a single benchmark metric, yet the specifications and performance deltas paint a clear picture of their respective positions. The K20Xm, a dual-slot compute accelerator from the Tesla Kepler line, was built for raw throughput, while the GTX 960A, a mobile MXM module from the GeForce 900A series, prioritized efficiency and compactness. The benchmark results and architectural specs show that these are not direct competitors, but rather tools for vastly different workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark score between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm delivers a score of 17,215, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A’s 11,998. This results in a decisive 43.5% advantage for the K20Xm in this compute-centric workload. This delta is substantial and reflects the fundamental difference in their design goals; the K20Xm is engineered for high-intensity parallel computation, whereas the GTX 960A is a more modest mobile part.

To contextualize the K20Xm’s score, its average benchmark score across all tested workloads is 12,625. This places it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT, which scores 12,710 (a -0.7% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670, which scores 12,773 (a -1.2% difference). This indicates that while the K20Xm wins the OpenCL head-to-head against the GTX 960A, its overall average performance is closely clustered with these other mid-range parts from different generations.

The GTX 960A’s average benchmark score is 11,998, placing it in the 51st percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080, which scores 11,960 (a 0.3% difference), and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, which scores 11,842 (a 1.3% difference). This is a fascinating data point; the GTX 960A’s single OpenCL score is nearly identical to the average scores of much more powerful desktop GPUs. However, this is likely due to the specific workload of the OpenCL test, which can favor certain architectures. The 43.5% lead of the K20Xm in the direct head-to-head is the single most important comparative metric available, and it is a decisive victory for the older compute card.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split in use-case scenarios. The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm is the unequivocal winner in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 43.5% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test. This points to its suitability for tasks that demand massive parallel processing power, such as scientific simulations, deep learning inference, and complex data analysis. Its architecture, with 2,688 shading units and 224 texture mapping units, is designed to be fed constantly with data to process. This is a card for a server room or a dedicated workstation, not a typical desktop gaming rig.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A, while losing the compute benchmark, wins in the categories of power efficiency and physical footprint. Its thermal design power is 75 W, a mere fraction of the K20Xm’s 235 W. This allows it to operate with no external power connectors and fit into an MXM module form factor, making it suitable for laptops and compact, portable devices. The GTX 960A’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," confirming its role as a mobile component. Therefore, the GTX 960A is the winner for any scenario where space is constrained, power draw is a primary concern, and a display output is required. It is a GPU for a mobile workstation or a high-end notebook.

In essence, the K20Xm wins where performance is the only metric that matters, while the GTX 960A wins where the system constraints are the primary drivers. The K20Xm has no display outputs, making it useless for a standalone graphics solution, while the GTX 960A is not designed for the sustained, high-throughput compute loads the Tesla card handles with ease. They occupy different niches within the NVIDIA ecosystem, and the benchmark data reinforces this separation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm has a significantly higher score. It achieves 17,215, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998. This represents a 43.5% lead for the K20Xm.

Q: What is the difference in their average benchmark scores?

A: The Tesla K20Xm has an average benchmark score of 12,625, while the GTX 960A has an average of 11,998. This is a much smaller difference than the single OpenCL test, suggesting the K20Xm’s advantage is workload-specific.

Q: How does the GTX 960A compare to other GPUs in its performance class?

A: Its average score of 11,998 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (11,960, a 0.3% difference) and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842, a 1.3% difference) in the database. This indicates its average performance is in line with those parts.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each card?

A: The Tesla K20Xm has a thermal design power of 235 W, while the GTX 960A has a thermal design power of only 75 W. This highlights the stark difference in their intended operating environments.

Q: Are there any other benchmark results for the GTX 960A?

A: No. The only benchmark result listed for the GTX 960A is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,998. The Tesla K20Xm also has a Geekbench Metal score of 8,035, but there is no direct Metal score for the GTX 960A to compare against.

Q: Which GPU is positioned higher in the overall performance percentile?

A: The Tesla K20Xm is in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960A is in the 51st percentile. Despite the large delta in the OpenCL test, their overall standings are nearly identical.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs show fundamental differences in nearly every category. The memory configuration is a prime example. The Tesla K20Xm features 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 249.6 GB/s. In contrast, the GTX 960A has only 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The memory clock also differs, with the K20Xm running at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) and the GTX 960A at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The physical and power specifications are also vastly different. The K20Xm is a dual-slot card, 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, with a TDP of 235 W and a suggested power supply of 550 W. The GTX 960A is an MXM module with a TDP of 75 W and no external power connectors. The K20Xm also has no display outputs, whereas the GTX 960A’s outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in. The bus interface differs, with the K20Xm using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the GTX 960A using MXM-B (3.0). The production status for both is end-of-life, but their release dates are over two years apart: November 2012 for the K20Xm and March 2015 for the GTX 960A. The K20Xm had a launch MSRP of 7,699 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The Tesla K20Xm is built on the Kepler architecture (chip GK110), while the GTX 960A is built on the Maxwell architecture (chip GM107). Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC and have the same transistor density of 12.6M / mm², but there the similarities end.

The K20Xm is a massive chip with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. It is equipped with 2,688 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This configuration yields a pixel rate of 40.99 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 164.0 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is listed at 3.935 TFLOPS. The GTX 960A is a much smaller chip, with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. It has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This results in a pixel rate of 18.82 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 1.505 TFLOPS.

The feature sets also differ. While both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, the GTX 960A supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the K20Xm supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The generation field lists the K20Xm as "Tesla Kepler (Kxx)" and the GTX 960A as "GeForce 900A". The K20Xm’s predecessor is Tesla Fermi, and its successor is Tesla Maxwell. The GTX 960A’s predecessor is the GeForce 800A, and it has no listed successor. These differences in core counts, memory subsystems, and API support confirm that the GTX 960A is a more modern, efficient design, but one that is scaled down for a completely different market segment than the high-performance K20Xm.