NVIDIA Quadro P4000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20c Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K20c and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 represent two very different eras of NVIDIA’s professional GPU lineup. The K20c is a Kepler-generation compute card aimed at high-performance computing, while the P4000 is a Pascal-generation workstation card designed for professional visualization and general-purpose workloads. Benchmark data from the database shows a decisive overall winner in raw OpenCL performance, but the two cards serve distinct roles that go beyond a single score. This analysis walks through the recorded measurements, architectural differences, and use-case implications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11,479 points. The P4000 leads by a margin of 68.3% in this test, which is a substantial gap. In practical terms, the P4000 completes OpenCL compute workloads more than three times faster than the K20c, based on the recorded scores.

The delta percentage of 68.3% reflects the P4000’s advantage relative to the K20c’s score. This is not a marginal difference; it is a dominant performance gap in the one workload where both cards were measured under identical conditions. The K20c’s score of 11,479 places it in the 51st percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the P4000’s score of 36,212 places it in the 47th percentile. This percentile comparison is notable: the P4000’s OpenCL score is far higher than the K20c’s, yet its overall percentile is lower because the database averages multiple benchmark results for the P4000, including older DirectX and Passmark tests that drag down its average.

The database’s average benchmark score for the K20c is 11,479, which is identical to its Geekbench OpenCL score, since that is the only test recorded for it. For the P4000, the average benchmark score is 9,665, which is significantly lower than its OpenCL score of 36,212. This discrepancy exists because the P4000 has ten recorded tests, including low scores on Passmark DirectX 9 (181), DirectX 10 (66), DirectX 11 (86), and DirectX 12 (40). These legacy API tests pull the P4000’s average down, even though its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are strong. The P4000’s Vulkan score of 41,786 and its Passmark G3D score of 11,466 both exceed the K20c’s only recorded benchmark.

The K20c’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (average score 11,528, delta of 0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627, 1.3% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680, 1.7% higher). The K20c sits just below these cards, with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261) trailing it by 1.9%. This places the K20c in a narrow band of mid-range performance, despite its high-end compute heritage.

The P4000’s nearest rivals are clustered much closer to its average score. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653) is 0.1% lower, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645) is 0.2% lower, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637) is 0.3% lower. The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716) is the only rival ahead of it, by 0.5%. This tight cluster around the P4000’s average score of 9,665 shows that, when averaging all recorded benchmarks, the P4000 sits in a mid-range position, even though its OpenCL score is exceptional.

Where Each One Wins

The P4000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and it wins by a wide margin in OpenCL. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, which includes many scientific, engineering, and data-processing applications. The P4000 also has a strong Vulkan score of 41,786, which suggests solid performance in Vulkan-based workloads, though no direct comparison with the K20c exists for that API.

The K20c has no recorded wins in the database. It has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison. However, the K20c’s single benchmark score of 11,479 in OpenCL is higher than the P4000’s average benchmark score of 9,665. This is an important distinction: if one compares only the K20c’s OpenCL result to the P4000’s average across all tests, the K20c appears stronger. But the head-to-head measurement, which uses the same OpenCL test for both cards, shows the opposite conclusion. The P4000 is 68.3% faster in OpenCL.

For legacy DirectX workloads, the P4000’s Passmark scores are mixed. Its DirectX 9 score of 181 is its best among the legacy API tests, while DirectX 10 (66), DirectX 11 (86), and DirectX 12 (40) are all low. These scores suggest that the P4000 is not optimized for older DirectX titles, but they also drag down its average. The K20c has no recorded DirectX or Passmark scores, so no comparison is possible in those areas.

The P4000 also has a Passmark G2D score of 786, which measures 2D graphics performance. The K20c has no display outputs, which means it cannot drive a monitor or handle traditional 2D desktop workloads. This is a fundamental functional difference: the P4000 can serve as a workstation GPU with visual output, while the K20c is a compute-only card.

Architecture Differences

The K20c is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK110 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 7,080 million transistors on a die size of 561 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The P4000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP104 chip, also from TSMC, but on a more advanced 16 nm process. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a die size of 314 mm², giving it a transistor density of 22.9 million per mm². The P4000 has nearly the same transistor count as the K20c but on a die that is 44% smaller, which reflects the efficiency gains of the newer process node.

The K20c has 2,496 shading units, 208 texture mapping units, and 40 raster operations pipelines. The P4000 has fewer shading units at 1,792, fewer texture units at 112, but more ROPs at 64. This configuration explains part of the performance difference: the P4000’s higher ROP count gives it a pixel rate of 94.72 GPixel/s, compared to the K20c’s 36.71 GPixel/s. The P4000 also has a higher texture rate of 165.8 GTexel/s versus 146.8 GTexel/s for the K20c.

In terms of floating-point performance, the P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the K20c delivers 3.524 TFLOPS. The P4000 also supports FP16 at 82.88 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the K20c has no recorded FP16 capability. The P4000’s higher FP32 throughput is a key reason for its OpenCL advantage.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The K20c has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 208.0 GB/s. The P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, but with a higher bandwidth of 243.3 GB/s. The P4000’s memory runs at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), while the K20c’s memory runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The P4000’s narrower bus is compensated by faster memory clocks, yielding 17% more bandwidth than the K20c.

The P4000 has explicit clock speeds: a base clock of 1202 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz. The K20c has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. The P4000 also supports a wider range of APIs, including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K20c supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The DirectX feature level difference (12_1 versus 11_0) and the Vulkan version difference (1.4 versus 1.2.175) indicate that the P4000 has more modern API support.

Power and physical characteristics also differ. The K20c has a TDP of 225 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. The P4000 has a TDP of 105 W, uses a single-slot cooler, and requires only 1x 6-pin power. The suggested power supply for the P4000 is 300 W, while the K20c suggests 550 W. The K20c is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) compared to the P4000’s 241 mm (9.5 inches). The P4000 also has a recorded height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The K20c has no display outputs, while the P4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The bus interface differs as well: the K20c uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the P4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. This gives the P4000 double the I/O bandwidth to the host system, which can matter for data transfer in compute workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion for compute performance: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the superior card. It leads the only head-to-head benchmark by 68.3%, with an OpenCL score of 36,212 versus 11,479 for the K20c. The P4000 also has higher FP32 throughput (5.304 TFLOPS versus 3.524 TFLOPS), higher pixel rate (94.72 GPixel/s versus 36.71 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (165.8 GTexel/s versus 146.8 GTexel/s), more memory (8 GB versus 5 GB), and higher memory bandwidth (243.3 GB/s versus 208.0 GB/s). It is also more power-efficient, with a TDP of 105 W versus 225 W, and it can output video through four DisplayPort connections, which the K20c cannot do at all.

The K20c’s only advantage in the recorded data is its higher average benchmark score relative to the P4000’s average, but that is an artifact of the P4000’s additional legacy benchmark results. In the only apples-to-apples comparison available, the K20c loses decisively.

For users choosing between these two cards, the P4000 is the pick for anyone who needs a workstation GPU with display output, modern API support, and strong OpenCL compute. The K20c is a compute-only card from an older generation, with lower performance across every recorded metric except its single OpenCL score, which is still far below the P4000’s. The K20c’s launch MSRP was 3,199 USD, while the P4000’s launch MSRP was 815 USD. The K20c was released in 2012, and the P4000 in 2017. Both are end-of-life products, but the P4000 is the more capable and versatile option based on all recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11,479. The P4000 leads by 68.3%.

Q: Does the Tesla K20c support display outputs?

A: No. The K20c has no display outputs, while the P4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: How do the memory sizes compare?

A: The K20c has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, while the P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. The P4000 has higher bandwidth at 243.3 GB/s versus 208.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The K20c has a TDP of 225 W and requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. The P4000 has a TDP of 105 W and requires a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card has better FP32 performance?

A: The P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to the K20c’s 3.524 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the architecture differences?

A: The K20c uses the Kepler architecture with the GK110 chip on a 28 nm process, while the P4000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP104 chip on a 16 nm process.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla K20c | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Kepler | Pascal |

| Chip | GK110 | GP104 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 1202 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) | 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | 243.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2496 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 208 | 112 |

| ROPs | 40 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 36.71 GPixel/s | 94.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 146.8 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.524 TFLOPS | 5.304 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 225 W | 105 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | Not recorded | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2012-11-11 | 2017-02-05 |

| Launch MSRP | 3,199 USD | 815 USD |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | Tesla Fermi | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | Tesla Maxwell | Quadro Volta |