NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti vs NVIDIA Tesla K80 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K80 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti represent two very different eras of GPU design, despite both carrying the NVIDIA name. The K80 is a compute-oriented accelerator from the Kepler generation, built for scientific workloads, while the RTX 3060 Ti is a consumer gaming card from the Ampere generation. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear performance gap, but the details of that gap and the architectural reasons behind it are worth examining closely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparison points for these cards: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both tests, the RTX 3060 Ti wins decisively. The Geekbench OpenCL result shows the RTX 3060 Ti scoring 78,927 against the Tesla K80’s 18,620. That is a delta of -76.4% when measured from the RTX 3060 Ti’s perspective, meaning the K80 delivers only about a quarter of the RTX 3060 Ti’s compute performance in this workload. In raw terms, the RTX 3060 Ti is roughly 4.2 times faster in OpenCL.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though the gap is slightly narrower. The RTX 3060 Ti scores 47,784, while the Tesla K80 scores 19,111. The delta here is -60%, which means the RTX 3060 Ti is about 2.5 times faster in Vulkan. This is still a substantial advantage, but it is notably the K80 holds up relatively better in Vulkan than in OpenCL. The K80’s Vulkan score is actually slightly higher than its OpenCL score, while the RTX 3060 Ti’s Vulkan score is significantly lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting that the newer architecture scales better with OpenCL’s compute patterns.

Looking at broader context, the Tesla K80’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 18,866. That places it at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 with an average score of 18,789 (0.4% lower), the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation at 18,954 (0.5% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 at 19,030 (0.9% higher). The K80 sits in the middle of a cluster of mid-to-upper range cards from several generations. This means its raw compute capability is not embarrassing by any means; it is competitive with much newer consumer cards in synthetic workloads.

The RTX 3060 Ti, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 16,129, which places it at the 59th percentile. This is lower than the K80’s average score, but that is misleading because the RTX 3060 Ti has many more benchmark entries, including several DirectX and Passmark tests that the K80 lacks. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 at 16,014 (0.7% lower), the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M at 16,351 (1.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT at 16,361 (1.4% higher). The RTX 3060 Ti’s average is dragged down by its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 234 and DirectX 12 score of 78, which are legacy API tests that do not reflect modern workload performance.

The head-to-head data shows the RTX 3060 Ti winning both recorded tests. The K80 has zero wins in the direct comparison, while the RTX 3060 Ti has two. The OpenCL margin is the biggest single win for the RTX 3060 Ti, with a 76.4% advantage. The Vulkan margin of 60% is still large but less extreme. These numbers indicate that for any modern compute or graphics task, the RTX 3060 Ti is the stronger performer by a wide margin, despite the K80’s higher average across all benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Tesla K80 uses the GK210 chip, based on Kepler 2.0 architecture, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 7,100 million transistors on a die size of 561 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.7 million per square millimeter. The RTX 3060 Ti uses the GA104 chip, based on Ampere architecture, produced on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This chip contains 17,400 million transistors on a smaller die of 392 mm², achieving a transistor density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. That is nearly 3.5 times the density of the K80, which explains how the RTX 3060 Ti fits more compute units into a physically smaller package.

Clock speeds differ dramatically. The K80 runs at a base clock of 562 MHz and a boost clock of 824 MHz. The RTX 3060 Ti runs at a base clock of 1410 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. That is more than double the base clock and roughly double the boost clock. Higher clocks alone do not tell the whole story, but combined with the newer architecture, they contribute significantly to the performance gap.

Memory configurations are also distinct. The K80 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 240.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1253 MHz, with 5 Gbps effective data rate. The RTX 3060 Ti has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is 1750 MHz, with 14 Gbps effective data rate. Despite having less capacity and a narrower bus, the RTX 3060 Ti delivers nearly double the bandwidth because of the faster GDDR6 standard.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the newer card. The K80 has 2,496 shading units, 208 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The RTX 3060 Ti has 4,864 shading units, 152 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The RTX 3060 Ti has roughly 95% more shading units, but fewer TMUs. However, the RTX 3060 Ti also includes 38 RT cores and 152 tensor cores, features that the K80 lacks entirely. These specialized units enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads, which the K80 cannot accelerate in the same way.

The K80’s pixel rate is 42.85 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 171.4 GTexel/s. The RTX 3060 Ti’s pixel rate is 133.2 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 253.1 GTexel/s. The RTX 3060 Ti is more than 3 times faster in pixel fill and about 1.5 times faster in texture fill. FP32 compute shows an even larger gap: the K80 delivers 4.113 TFLOPS, while the RTX 3060 Ti delivers 16.20 TFLOPS. The RTX 3060 Ti also has FP16 performance of 16.20 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the K80 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3060 Ti wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. Its OpenCL score of 78,927 is more than four times the K80’s 18,620. This suggests that for general-purpose compute workloads that use OpenCL, the RTX 3060 Ti is the clear choice. The Vulkan result of 47,784 versus 19,111 also favors the RTX 3060 Ti, though by a smaller margin. For any modern graphics API, the RTX 3060 Ti is superior.

The K80’s advantages are more subtle and are not captured in the head-to-head benchmarks. It has 12 GB of memory versus the RTX 3060 Ti’s 8 GB. For workloads that require large memory footprints, such as certain scientific simulations or large dataset processing, the K80 can hold more data on the GPU. The K80 also has a wider memory bus at 384-bit, which can be beneficial for memory access patterns that are not purely bandwidth-dependent. However, the actual bandwidth is lower, so this advantage is theoretical.

The K80 also has a unique position in the database’s percentile ranking. Its 63rd percentile is higher than the RTX 3060 Ti’s 59th percentile. This is due to the different benchmark sets each card is tested under, but it does indicate that the K80 performs respectably relative to all GPUs in the database, even though it is an older card. The K80’s nearest rivals include cards like the RTX 2070 and Quadro K6000, both of which are newer or higher-end in their respective lines. This suggests the K80 is not a weak performer in absolute terms; it is simply outclassed by the RTX 3060 Ti.

For gaming, the RTX 3060 Ti has clear advantages. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and has display outputs including HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4a. The K80 has no display outputs at all, making it unsuitable for any interactive graphics work. The K80’s DirectX support is limited to 12 (11_1), which is a lower feature level. The RTX 3060 Ti also has RT cores for ray tracing and tensor cores for DLSS, features that are directly relevant to modern gaming workloads.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti for any workload that can use modern APIs or requires high compute throughput. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 76.4% and 60%. Its FP32 performance of 16.20 TFLOPS is nearly four times the K80’s 4.113 TFLOPS. It has more shading units, more ROPs, higher clocks, faster memory, and specialized RT and tensor cores. It also has a lower TDP of 200 W versus the K80’s 300 W, and requires a smaller suggested PSU of 550 W versus 700 W. The RTX 3060 Ti is shorter at 242 mm versus 267 mm, making it easier to fit in compact cases.

The Tesla K80 remains a viable option only for niche use cases. Its 12 GB memory capacity is larger than the RTX 3060 Ti’s 8 GB. Its 63rd percentile ranking shows it is not a weak card in the broader database context. It also has a higher average benchmark score of 18,866 versus the RTX 3060 Ti’s 16,129, though this is influenced by the different test sets. For users who need large memory capacity and do not require modern API support, the K80 could still serve. However, it has no display outputs, so it cannot be used for any visual output. It also lacks RT and tensor cores, and its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is less capable.

For most users, the RTX 3060 Ti is the obvious pick. It is faster, more efficient, and more feature-rich. The K80 is an end-of-life product from 2014, while the RTX 3060 Ti is from 2020. The architectural gap is too large to overcome. The RTX 3060 Ti’s launch MSRP is 399 USD, which can be stated as a reference point, but the performance data alone justifies its selection over the K80 for any modern workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The RTX 3060 Ti scores 78,927 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Tesla K80 scores 18,620. The RTX 3060 Ti is ahead by 76.4%, making it roughly four times faster.

Q: Does the Tesla K80 have any advantage over the RTX 3060 Ti?

A: The K80 has 12 GB of memory versus the RTX 3060 Ti’s 8 GB, and a wider 384-bit memory bus. Its average benchmark score of 18,866 is also higher than the RTX 3060 Ti’s 16,129, though this is based on different test sets.

Q: Can the Tesla K80 be used for gaming?

A: No, the K80 has no display outputs, so it cannot connect to a monitor. It also lacks RT cores and tensor cores, and its DirectX 12 support is limited to the 11_1 feature level.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX 3060 Ti provides 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus. The Tesla K80 provides 240.6 GB/s using GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus. The RTX 3060 Ti has nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX 3060 Ti has 4,864 shading units, while the Tesla K80 has 2,496. The RTX 3060 Ti has approximately 95% more shading units.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Tesla K80 has a TDP of 300 W and a suggested PSU of 700 W. The RTX 3060 Ti has a TDP of 200 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The RTX 3060 Ti is more power-efficient.

Specification Differences

The key differences between the two cards are as follows:

• Chip: GK210 (Kepler 2.0) versus GA104 (Ampere)
• Process node: 28 nm (TSMC) versus 8 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: 7,100 million versus 17,400 million
• Die size: 561 mm² versus 392 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.7M / mm² versus 44.4M / mm²
• Base clock: 562 MHz versus 1410 MHz
• Boost clock: 824 MHz versus 1665 MHz
• Memory size: 12 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6
• Memory bus: 384 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 240.6 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 2,496 versus 4,864
• TMUs: 208 versus 152
• ROPs: 48 versus 80
• RT cores: None versus 38
• Tensor cores: None versus 152
• Pixel rate: 42.85 GPixel/s versus 133.2 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 171.4 GTexel/s versus 253.1 GTexel/s
• FP32: 4.113 TFLOPS versus 16.20 TFLOPS
• TDP: 300 W versus 200 W
• Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus 1x 12-pin
• Suggested PSU: 700 W versus 550 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: No outputs versus 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 versus 1.4
• Length: 267 mm versus 242 mm
• Release date: 2014-11-16 versus 2020-11-30