NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20c Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a curious case: two NVIDIA workstation cards from different eras, separated by nearly two years in release timing, yet landing almost exactly on top of each other in raw compute benchmarks. The NVIDIA Tesla K20c edges out the Quadro K2200 in the only shared benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 11479 against 11431 — a razor-thin 0.4% margin. Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the Tesla K20c posts an average score of 11479, while the Quadro K2200 averages 10761 when including its additional Vulkan result. The K20c holds a 51st percentile ranking among all GPUs, versus the K2200's 49th percentile.

Who should pick which? The data suggests the Tesla K20c is the compute-oriented choice for anyone prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput and the massive memory bandwidth of a 320-bit bus. The Quadro K2200, with its display outputs and lower power draw, suits environments where visual output matters and the GPU must fit into tighter physical and thermal constraints. The K2200 also offers Vulkan support at version 1.4, a significant leap over the K20c's 1.2.175, making it the more future-proof option for graphics APIs. However, if the task is purely computational and the system already has display output handled elsewhere, the K20c's single benchmark win — however marginal — makes it the safer bet for raw number crunching.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is substantial, even though both use a 28 nm process from TSMC. The Tesla K20c is built on the GK110 chip under the Kepler architecture, a design that packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die. In stark contrast, the Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip from the Maxwell architecture, with just 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Both share the same transistor density of 12.6M per mm², which makes sense given the identical process node.

The compute resources diverge dramatically. The K20c fields 2,496 shading units, 208 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The K2200, meanwhile, has only 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — roughly a quarter of the shader count and a fifth of the texture units. Yet the K20c's peak FP32 performance of 3.524 TFLOPS is only about 2.4 times the K2200's 1,438.7 GFLOPS, suggesting the Maxwell architecture extracts more efficiency per shader. The memory subsystems tell a similar story of divergence: the K20c has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus delivering 208.0 GB/s, while the K2200 has 4 GB on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The K20c's memory clock is listed at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the K2200.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The K20c is a dual-slot card rated at 225 W TDP, requiring both a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector and a 550 W suggested PSU. It has no display outputs whatsoever. The K2200 is a single-slot card at 68 W TDP, draws power entirely from the PCIe slot with no external connectors, needs only a 250 W PSU, and provides 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The K20c measures 267 mm in length; the K2200 is 202 mm long and 111 mm tall. Both use PCIe 2.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one benchmark appears in the head-to-head comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The Tesla K20c wins with a score of 11479 against the Quadro K2200's 11431, a delta of just 0.4%. This is statistically negligible — well within run-to-run variance for most OpenCL workloads. The K20c's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, scores 11528 (-0.4% relative to the K20c), while the K2200's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon Pro 450, scores 10804 (-0.4% relative to the K2200). Both cards sit in a tight cluster of mid-tier performers.

What makes this interesting is the context. The K20c's 3.524 TFLOPS FP32 rating and 208.0 GB/s bandwidth would normally suggest a much larger performance gap over the K2200's 1,438.7 GFLOPS and 80.19 GB/s. Yet the actual benchmark delta is under half a percent. This implies that the Geekbench OpenCL test is not saturating the K20c's compute or memory resources — or that the Maxwell architecture's efficiency gains close the gap in real-world workloads that Kepler cannot exploit. The K20c does win, but the margin is so thin that the data cannot justify recommending it on performance alone.

The K2200 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10090, a test the K20c does not have. This suggests the K2200 may be the more versatile card for modern graphics workloads, even if its OpenCL result is slightly lower. The wins tally confirms the picture: the K20c has 1 head-to-head win, the K2200 has 0.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Tesla K20c, at 3.524 TFLOPS FP32, versus the Quadro K2200's 1,438.7 GFLOPS. However, the actual OpenCL benchmark scores are nearly identical: 11479 for the K20c and 11431 for the K2200.

Q: Can I connect a monitor to either card?

A: Only the Quadro K2200 has display outputs — specifically 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Tesla K20c has no outputs at all, meaning it requires a separate GPU for display.

Q: Which card consumes less power and requires less cooling?

A: The K2200 is far more power-efficient with a 68 W TDP, single-slot design, and no external power connectors. The K20c is a dual-slot card at 225 W TDP needing both a 6-pin and 8-pin connector.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K20c is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11528), 1.3% behind the RX 7800 XT (11627), and 1.7% behind the GTX 1660 (11680), while 1.9% ahead of the GTX 780M (11261). The K2200 is 0.4% behind the Radeon Pro 450 (10804), 1.1% behind the GeForce MX350 (10883), 0.7% ahead of the GTX 560 Ti (10690), and 1.2% ahead of the RX 6600S (10629).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The K20c delivers 208.0 GB/s over a 320-bit bus, while the K2200 provides 80.19 GB/s over a 128-bit bus — a 2.6x advantage for the K20c.

Q: Which card has better API support for modern graphics?

A: The K2200 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K20c only reaches Vulkan 1.2.175. Both offer DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K20c wins in scenarios where memory bandwidth and raw shader throughput are the limiting factors. Its 208.0 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the K2200's 80.19 GB/s, making it the better choice for large datasets that must stream through memory. The 5 GB frame buffer also exceeds the K2200's 4 GB, providing more headroom for workloads that approach memory capacity limits. The K20c's 2,496 shading units and 208 TMUs give it a theoretical advantage in compute-heavy tasks like dense matrix operations, even if the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect it strongly. The data shows it wins the only head-to-head test, and its 51st percentile ranking is above the K2200's 49th.

The Quadro K2200 wins in practical deployment terms. Its single-slot, 68 W design with no external power connectors means it can be installed in systems where the K20c would simply not fit or would require power supply upgrades — the suggested PSU drops from 550 W to 250 W. The presence of display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) makes it a standalone workstation card, whereas the K20c requires a companion GPU for any visual output. The K2200's Vulkan 1.4 support also positions it better for cross-platform compute and modern graphics APIs. Its 202 mm length and 111 mm height make it compatible with far more chassis than the 267 mm K20c.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field except process node, foundry, transistor density, bus interface, DirectX version, and OpenGL version. The K20c uses the GK110 chip on Kepler, while the K2200 uses GM107 on Maxwell. Transistor counts are 7,080 million versus 1,870 million; die sizes are 561 mm² versus 148 mm². The K20c has no base or boost clock listed, while the K2200 runs at 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 5 GB versus 4 GB, bus width 320-bit versus 128-bit, bandwidth 208.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. Shading units are 2496 versus 640, TMUs 208 versus 40, ROPs 40 versus 16. Pixel rate is 36.71 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s; texture rate is 146.8 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s; FP32 is 3.524 TFLOPS versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS. TDP is 225 W versus 68 W; slot width is dual-slot versus single-slot; power connectors are 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin versus none; suggested PSU is 550 W versus 250 W. Display outputs are none versus 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. Vulkan version is 1.2.175 versus 1.4. The K20c is 267 mm long; the K2200 is 202 mm long and 111 mm tall. The K20c's release date is November 2012 with a launch MSRP of 3,199 USD; the K2200's is July 2014 with no launch MSRP listed.