NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K80 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two compute-oriented API benchmarks, and in both cases the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 dominates. The largest margin appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro RTX 5000 scores 92,309 against the Tesla K80's 19,111, a delta of 383%. That is a massive gap, more than quadrupling the older card's result. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 5000 posts 78,999 versus 18,620 for the Tesla K80, a 324.3% advantage. Both deltas are far beyond what generational improvements typically show, indicating that the Quadro is not merely faster but operates in a different performance class for these workloads.

The average benchmark score reinforces this split. The Quadro RTX 5000 carries an average of 21,629 across its full benchmark suite, while the Tesla K80 averages 18,866 from its two recorded tests. The percentile rankings place the Quadro at the 67th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla sits at the 63rd. That difference, though modest in percentile terms, understates the head-to-head deltas because the Quadro's average includes several older DirectX tests where it scores low (for example, Passmark DirectX 12 at 59 and Passmark DirectX 10 at 113). The Tesla has no such legacy tests recorded, so its average is derived solely from the two modern compute benchmarks.

Looking at the Quadro's broader benchmark profile, it shows a strong Passmark G3D score of 15,616 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 6,525. Its Passmark G2D score of 709 is comparatively modest, and its DirectX 9 score of 195 is the highest among its DirectX results, which is typical for a workstation card that prioritizes compute and modern APIs over legacy rasterization. The Tesla K80, by contrast, has no DirectX or Passmark results in the database, so its only measurable outputs are the two Geekbench scores, both of which trail by wide margins.

When placed against their nearest rivals, both cards sit in a similar competitive band relative to their own peers. The Quadro RTX 5000's nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, which averages 21,856, a 1% delta. The RTX A4000 Mobile trails by 1.2%, and the AMD Radeon HD 8970M trails by 1.8%. The Tesla K80's nearest rival is the RTX 2000 Ada Generation at 18,954, a 0.5% gap, with the Quadro K6000 and Radeon RX 6600 both within 0.9%. This suggests that while the Tesla is old, it still holds its own against mid-range modern cards in raw compute benchmarks, but the Quadro RTX 5000 is positioned closer to upper-midrange performance, which explains the enormous head-to-head margins.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for any workload that relies on the two benchmarks recorded. The Quadro RTX 5000 wins both head-to-head tests, with deltas of 324.3% and 383%. No recorded test favors the Tesla K80. For compute tasks using OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro is categorically superior, and the margin is so large that the Tesla cannot be considered a competitive alternative in these metrics.

However, the Tesla K80 is not without context. Its average score of 18,866 places it within 0.9% of the Quadro K6000 and 0.4% of the GeForce RTX 2070, meaning that in its own era it was a capable compute card. But compared directly to the Quadro RTX 5000, the numbers are lopsided. The Quadro also offers features the Tesla lacks entirely, such as ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which are not benchmarked here but are present in the specification data. Those features, combined with the massive compute lead, make the Quadro the only sensible choice for users who need modern API support and high throughput.

For a user deciding between these two, the verdict is straightforward: the Quadro RTX 5000 is the superior card in every measured dimension. The Tesla K80 might still be relevant for legacy Kepler-specific workloads or for systems where its dual-GPU design is exploited, but the recorded data shows no scenario where it wins. The Quadro's higher percentile rank (67th vs 63rd) and its 2-0 win record in head-to-head tests reinforce this conclusion. The Tesla's only advantage is its much lower power draw relative to its age, but that is not a performance metric and does not appear in the benchmark results.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras. The Quadro RTX 5000 uses the TU104 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, while the Tesla K80 uses the GK210 chip on a 28 nm TSMC process. The Quadro's transistor count is 13,600 million, nearly double the Tesla's 7,100 million, but the Tesla's die size is slightly larger at 561 mm² versus 545 mm². This yields a transistor density of 25.0M per mm² for the Quadro versus 12.7M per mm² for the Tesla, reflecting the process node advantage.

The Quadro is built on Turing architecture, while the Tesla uses Kepler 2.0. The Quadro features 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores. The Tesla has 2,496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores. Clock speeds differ dramatically: the Quadro's base is 1,620 MHz with a boost of 1,815 MHz, while the Tesla's base is 562 MHz with a boost of 824 MHz. That clock gap alone explains a substantial portion of the performance difference.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Quadro has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 240.6 GB/s. Despite the wider bus, the Tesla's slower memory clock (1,253 MHz versus 1,750 MHz) and older memory type result in nearly half the bandwidth. The Quadro's pixel rate is 116.2 GPixel/s versus 42.85 GPixel/s for the Tesla, and its texture rate is 348.5 GTexel/s versus 171.4 GTexel/s.

The Quadro supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro's FP32 throughput is 11.15 TFLOPS, while the Tesla's is 4.113 TFLOPS. The Quadro also has FP16 capability at 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1), while the Tesla has no recorded FP16 performance. The Tesla's TDP is 300 W versus 230 W for the Quadro, and the Tesla requires a 700 W suggested PSU versus 550 W for the Quadro. The Quadro has display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C), while the Tesla has no outputs, making it a compute-only card.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 averages 21,629, while the Tesla K80 averages 18,866.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro RTX 5000 scores 92,309 versus 19,111 for the Tesla K80, a delta of 383%.

Q: Does the Tesla K80 support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No, the Tesla K80 has no RT cores and no tensor cores, while the Quadro RTX 5000 has 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 has 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the Tesla K80 has 240.6 GB/s from 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 has 25.0M transistors per mm², while the Tesla K80 has 12.7M per mm².

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life, with the Quadro RTX 5000 released in 2018 and the Tesla K80 in 2014.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 5000 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, so the wins are easy to enumerate. In Geekbench OpenCL, it posts 78,999 versus 18,620, a 324.3% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, it posts 92,309 versus 19,111, a 383% lead. The Quadro also wins on all compute-related specifications: higher FP32 throughput (11.15 TFLOPS vs 4.113 TFLOPS), higher texture rate (348.5 GTexel/s vs 171.4 GTexel/s), and higher pixel rate (116.2 GPixel/s vs 42.85 GPixel/s). Its memory bandwidth is 86% higher, and it has more shading units (3,072 vs 2,496).

The Tesla K80 has no recorded wins in any benchmark or specification category that matters for performance. Its only advantages are a slightly larger die size (561 mm² vs 545 mm²), more TMUs (208 vs 192), a wider memory bus (384-bit vs 256-bit), and a lower TDP relative to its performance class, though its actual TDP of 300 W is higher than the Quadro's 230 W. The Tesla also has a larger number of ROPs? No, it has fewer (48 vs 64). The Tesla's only true specification wins are the TMU count and the memory bus width, neither of which translates into a benchmark victory.

For use cases, the Quadro is suitable for any workload that benefits from modern APIs, high FP32 throughput, or ray tracing and tensor core acceleration. The Tesla, lacking display outputs, is strictly a compute accelerator, and its Kepler architecture lacks the features needed to compete in Vulkan or OpenCL tasks that the Quadro handles with ease. The data shows no scenario where the Tesla is the better choice, except possibly for legacy Kepler-specific codebases that cannot run on Turing, but that is not reflected in any benchmark result.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Process node: 12 nm (Quadro) vs 28 nm (Tesla)
• Transistors: 13,600 million vs 7,100 million
• Die size: 545 mm² vs 561 mm²
• Transistor density: 25.0M / mm² vs 12.7M / mm²
• Base clock: 1,620 MHz vs 562 MHz
• Boost clock: 1,815 MHz vs 824 MHz
• Memory clock: 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) vs 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 16 GB vs 12 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 vs GDDR5
• Bus width: 256 bit vs 384 bit
• Bandwidth: 448.0 GB/s vs 240.6 GB/s
• Shading units: 3,072 vs 2,496
• TMUs: 192 vs 208
• ROPs: 64 vs 48
• RT cores: 48 vs none
• Tensor cores: 384 vs none
• Pixel rate: 116.2 GPixel/s vs 42.85 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 348.5 GTexel/s vs 171.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 11.15 TFLOPS vs 4.113 TFLOPS
• FP16: 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1) vs none
• TDP: 230 W vs 300 W
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs 700 W
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C vs no outputs
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 vs 1.2.175
• Release date: 2018-08-12 vs 2014-11-16
• Predecessor: Quadro Volta vs Tesla Fermi
• Successor: Workstation Ampere vs Tesla Maxwell
• Launch MSRP: 2,299 USD (Quadro only; Tesla has no recorded launch MSRP)