NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits the two NVIDIA Kepler cards into distinct roles. The GeForce GTX TITAN takes both recorded wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the Tesla K20Xm does not claim a single victory across the shared tests. This is not a narrow margin; the GTX TITAN leads by a substantial 44.5% in Geekbench OpenCL and by a modest 2.3% in Geekbench Metal.

Looking at the use-case split, the GTX TITAN is the clear performer for compute workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration. Its OpenCL score of 24,873 versus the Tesla K20Xm's 17,215 indicates a decisive advantage in raw parallel throughput. The Metal test tells a different story in scale, but the same direction: the GTX TITAN scores 8,218 against the K20Xm's 8,035, a 2.3% edge that is closer but still favors the GeForce card.

The Tesla K20Xm, however, is not without its own positioning. Its average benchmark score of 12,625 places it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GTX TITAN sits at the 56th percentile with an average of 14,373. The K20Xm's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (0.7% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (1.2% ahead), the GTX 590 (1.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (1.6% ahead). This clustering shows the K20Xm sits in a competitive mid-range pack, whereas the GTX TITAN sits slightly higher, with rivals like the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (0.4% ahead) showing it is close to its own peer group.

For users prioritizing Metal performance, the two cards are nearly interchangeable, with the GTX TITAN's 2.3% lead being within the noise of real-world variance. For OpenCL-heavy tasks, the GTX TITAN is the unambiguous choice. The K20Xm, with no display outputs, is clearly designed for headless compute installations, while the GTX TITAN offers display connectivity, making it more flexible for mixed workloads.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental silicon: the GK110 chip, built on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 12.6M per mm². This means the architectural core is the same, and any performance differences come from clock speeds, memory clocks, and feature configuration, not from a different chip design.

The GTX TITAN is part of the GeForce 700 generation, while the K20Xm belongs to the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation. Both use the Kepler architecture and support the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is consistent with their Kepler-era design.

The most significant architectural difference lies in their intended roles. The GTX TITAN includes display outputs (2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), making it a consumer-oriented card that can drive monitors. The K20Xm has no display outputs at all, marking it as a dedicated compute accelerator. This distinction affects how the cards are deployed, but not their underlying compute capabilities.

Clock behavior also differs. The GTX TITAN has a base clock of 836 MHz and a boost clock of 876 MHz, while the K20Xm does not have recorded base or boost clocks in the database. The memory clock differs too: the GTX TITAN runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the K20Xm runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). These clock differences directly impact memory bandwidth and compute throughput, as detailed in the benchmark section.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers two tests: Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL. In Geekbench Metal, the GTX TITAN scores 8,218 against the K20Xm's 8,035, a 2.3% lead. This is a narrow margin, suggesting that for Metal-based workloads, the two cards perform nearly identically. The GTX TITAN's higher memory clock and boost clock contribute to this edge, but the difference is small enough that other factors, such as driver optimization, could account for it.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the gap widens dramatically. The GTX TITAN scores 24,873, while the K20Xm scores 17,215. The 44.5% delta is the largest difference in the entire comparison. This is a substantial margin that points to the GTX TITAN's higher pixel rate (49.06 GPixel/s versus 40.99 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (196.2 GTexel/s versus 164.0 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (4.709 TFLOPS versus 3.935 TFLOPS). The memory bandwidth also plays a role: 288.4 GB/s versus 249.6 GB/s, a difference driven by the higher memory clock on the GTX TITAN.

The OpenCL result is the headline figure. A 44.5% advantage in compute performance is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational gap within the same chip. The GTX TITAN effectively runs the GK110 at higher clocks, and the OpenCL benchmark captures that advantage fully. The Metal test, by contrast, appears less sensitive to these clock differences, possibly due to different workload characteristics or driver overhead.

Neither card has recorded Vulkan scores, and the K20Xm lacks a Geekbench Vulkan entry entirely. The GTX TITAN has a Vulkan score of 10,027, but there is no comparable K20Xm result, so a head-to-head comparison in Vulkan is not possible from the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The two cards share many specifications: both have 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 384-bit bus width, 2,688 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. They also share the same die size, transistor count, and process node. The differences are concentrated in clocks, power, and features.

The GTX TITAN has a base clock of 836 MHz and a boost clock of 876 MHz; the K20Xm has no recorded base or boost clocks. The memory clock differs: 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). This drives a memory bandwidth difference of 288.4 GB/s versus 249.6 GB/s.

Pixel rate and texture rate follow the clock differences. The GTX TITAN delivers 49.06 GPixel/s and 196.2 GTexel/s, while the K20Xm delivers 40.99 GPixel/s and 164.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 4.709 TFLOPS versus 3.935 TFLOPS. Neither card has FP16 capability recorded.

Power consumption differs: the GTX TITAN has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W suggested PSU, while the K20Xm has a TDP of 235 W and a 550 W suggested PSU. The GTX TITAN uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors; the K20Xm has no recorded power connectors. Both are dual-slot cards, and both measure 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length. The GTX TITAN has dimensions of 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height and 38 mm (1.5 inches) in width; the K20Xm has no recorded height or width.

Display outputs are a major differentiator: the GTX TITAN has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the K20Xm has no outputs. The launch MSRP also differs, but the database records it as 999 USD for the GTX TITAN and 7,699 USD for the K20Xm, reflecting their different market positions.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The GTX TITAN is significantly faster, scoring 24,873 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the K20Xm's 17,215, a 44.5% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Metal performance?

A: The GTX TITAN leads in Geekbench Metal with 8,218 versus 8,035, a 2.3% margin that is relatively close.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, but the GTX TITAN has higher memory bandwidth at 288.4 GB/s versus 249.6 GB/s.

Q: Are there any display outputs on the Tesla K20Xm?

A: No, the K20Xm has no display outputs, while the GTX TITAN includes 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The GTX TITAN delivers 4.709 TFLOPS, while the K20Xm delivers 3.935 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The GTX TITAN has an average score of 14,373, while the K20Xm has an average score of 12,625.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most users. The GeForce GTX TITAN outperforms the Tesla K20Xm in every recorded benchmark, with the OpenCL gap being particularly large. Its higher clocks, higher memory bandwidth, and higher compute throughput make it the superior card for general compute tasks. The GTX TITAN also has the advantage of display outputs, making it usable in a wider range of scenarios, from gaming to workstation tasks.

The Tesla K20Xm, on the other hand, is a specialized compute card. Its lack of display outputs and lower performance metrics suggest it was designed for server or datacenter installations where display output is unnecessary. Its lower TDP of 235 W versus 250 W, and lower suggested PSU of 550 W versus 600 W, may be relevant in power-constrained environments. However, the recorded benchmark data does not show any scenario where the K20Xm wins, so its only advantages are power efficiency and its positioning in the 52nd percentile versus the GTX TITAN's 56th percentile.

For users who need a card that can do both compute and display output, the GTX TITAN is the pick. For users who need a headless compute accelerator and can accept lower performance, the K20Xm may still be viable, but the data shows no performance benefit to choosing it. The GTX TITAN wins on raw performance, benchmark scores, and flexibility, making it the recommended choice based strictly on the recorded measurements.