NVIDIA Quadro M2000M vs NVIDIA Tesla K20c Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute throughput in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20c records a FP32 performance of 3.524 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M reaches 1,455.4 GFLOPS (approximately 1.46 TFLOPS). The K20c holds a substantial lead in raw floating-point capability.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Tesla K20c features 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 208.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s. The K20c offers more capacity and over 2.5 times the bandwidth.

Q: What is the performance gap in the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the Tesla K20c scores 11479, while the Quadro M2000M scores 10057. The K20c wins by 14.1%.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count and larger die?

A: The Tesla K20c uses 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, whereas the Quadro M2000M uses 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with identical transistor density of 12.6M per mm².

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Tesla K20c was released in 2012, and the Quadro M2000M in 2015.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Tesla K20c has a TDP of 225 W, while the Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W. The Quadro is far more power-efficient, consuming roughly a quarter of the power.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between two very different use cases. The NVIDIA Tesla K20c is the compute-oriented part: it wins the only head-to-head benchmark, delivers 14.1% higher OpenCL score, offers 3.524 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, and pairs that with 208.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 5 GB of VRAM. If the workload is raw number crunching, OpenCL compute, or any task that scales with shading units and texture fill, the K20c is the stronger choice. Its 2496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and 40 ROPs dwarf the Quadro's 640 shaders, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

The Quadro M2000M wins the other side of the equation: efficiency and mobility. At 55 W TDP versus 225 W, it draws far less power. It uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface and an MXM Module slot, making it a drop-in for portable workstations. It has display outputs (portable device dependent), while the K20c has no outputs at all. For a mobile workstation that needs OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan support, the M2000M is the practical pick. The K20c is a dual-slot card requiring a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector and a 550 W suggested PSU, which makes it unsuitable for laptops or constrained chassis.

The percentile data reinforces this: the K20c sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, while the M2000M sits at the 47th. The gap is modest in overall standings, but the K20c's nearest rivals (AMD Radeon Pro 5500M at -0.4%, AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT at -1.3%) are close, indicating it holds its own against much newer parts. The M2000M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at -0.1% and the AMD FirePro W5000 at 0.3%, showing it too is competitive within its class.

Pick the Tesla K20c if you need maximum compute density in a desktop or server, have the power budget, and do not need video output. Pick the Quadro M2000M if you need a low-power mobile GPU with display support and are willing to accept lower compute throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one shared benchmark between these two cards: geekbench_opencl. In that test, the Tesla K20c scores 11479, and the Quadro M2000M scores 10057. The delta is 14.1% in favor of the K20c. This is a meaningful margin, not a marginal one. A 14.1% advantage in OpenCL indicates the K20c's larger shader array and wider memory bus translate into real-world compute wins.

Context from nearest rivals helps interpret this score. The K20c's 11479 sits just 0.4% below the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11528) and 1.3% below the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11627), while being 1.9% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11261). So the K20c is squarely in the upper-middle range of the database. The M2000M's 10057 places it 0.1% below the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846 is the rival score; the delta is -0.1%, meaning the M2000M is slightly lower), 0.3% above the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803), and 1.1% above the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9724). The M2000M is competitive with older workstation parts but trails the K20c by a clear step.

There is no Vulkan benchmark recorded for the K20c, so the M2000M's geekbench_vulkan score of 9606 cannot be compared directly. The K20c's API support includes Vulkan 1.2.175, while the M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, but no head-to-head numbers exist for that test in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on nearly every hardware specification. Core configuration: the Tesla K20c has 2496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K20c leads by roughly 3.9x in shaders, 5.2x in TMUs, and 2.5x in ROPs.

Memory: the K20c has 5 GB GDDR5 on a 320-bit interface with 208.0 GB/s bandwidth. The M2000M has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds differ in kind: the K20c lists only a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), with no base or boost clock recorded. The M2000M has a base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The K20c's higher memory clock and wider bus give it the bandwidth advantage.

Pixel and texture rates follow the core counts: the K20c achieves 36.71 GPixel/s and 146.8 GTexel/s, while the M2000M achieves 18.19 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.524 TFLOPS for the K20c versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS for the M2000M. Neither card has RT cores, tensor cores, or FP16 support recorded.

Power and physical specs: the K20c has a 225 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 550 W. The M2000M has a 55 W TDP, uses an MXM Module form factor, requires no external power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. The K20c measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length; the M2000M has no dimensions recorded. The K20c has no display outputs; the M2000M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The K20c uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the M2000M uses MXM-A (3.0).

Architecture Differences

The Tesla K20c is built on the GK110 chip under the Kepler architecture, part of the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation. The Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip under the Maxwell architecture, from the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and both have the same transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The die sizes diverge: the K20c's GK110 is 561 mm², while the M2000M's GM107 is 148 mm². Transistor counts are 7,080 million versus 1,870 million, respectively.

The architecture generation gap matters. Kepler was designed for high compute throughput with large shader arrays, which explains the K20c's 2496 cores and massive FP32 output. Maxwell, on the other hand, emphasized efficiency per watt, which is evident in the M2000M's 55 W TDP despite still delivering respectable compute. The M2000M also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.175), though both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The predecessor and successor lines differ as well. The K20c's predecessor is Tesla Fermi and its successor is Tesla Maxwell. The M2000M's predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M. This places the K20c one generation older in the Tesla product line, while the M2000M sits in a mobile-focused Quadro lineage.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K20c wins in every recorded compute benchmark. Its 14.1% OpenCL lead over the M2000M, combined with 3.524 TFLOPS FP32, 146.8 GTexel/s texture rate, and 208.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, makes it the clear choice for GPU compute, scientific simulation, or any OpenCL-heavy workload. The 5 GB frame buffer also gives it more headroom for large datasets. Its 51st percentile ranking and close proximity to newer GPUs like the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (-0.4%) and RX 7800 XT (-1.3%) show it remains competitive even against much younger hardware.

The Quadro M2000M wins on power efficiency and portability. At 55 W TDP, it uses 170 W less than the K20c. Its MXM Module form factor and MXM-A (3.0) interface make it suitable for mobile workstations, and its portable device dependent display outputs mean it can drive a screen, unlike the K20c which has no outputs. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than the K20c's 1.2.175, and its 47th percentile shows it is not far behind in overall standings despite the compute deficit. The M2000M's nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at -0.1%, indicates it trades blows with older high-end workstation cards.

In a desktop or server with power to spare, the K20c is the compute winner. In a laptop or low-power chassis requiring display output, the M2000M is the only viable option of the two. The data does not support using the M2000M for raw compute: it loses the OpenCL test, has fewer cores, less bandwidth, and lower fill rates. Equally, the K20c cannot serve as a display adapter, so any use case requiring video output disqualifies it. The choice is not about which is better overall; it is about which fits the physical and power constraints of the system.