NVIDIA Tesla C2070 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20c Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database holds a single OpenCL benchmark comparison for these two compute cards, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11,479 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716 points. That is an 18.1% advantage for the K20c, a substantial margin for a single workload type. In terms of the broader database, the K20c sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the C2070 sits at the 47th percentile, meaning the K20c lands slightly above the median while the C2070 falls just below it.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card clarifies how these scores translate into real positioning. The K20c is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, which scores 11,528, a difference of only 0.4% in favor of the AMD part. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT by 1.3% (that card scores 11,627) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 by 1.7% (11,680). Against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, the K20c is 1.9% ahead, with that laptop GPU scoring 11,261. So the K20c sits in a tight cluster of mid-range cards, all within roughly two percentage points of each other.

The C2070, by contrast, lands in a slightly lower band. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA Tesla M10 at 9,724, which is only 0.1% higher. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 scores 9,665, putting it 0.5% behind the C2070, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 9,653, another 0.7% back. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 scores 9,780, which is 0.7% ahead of the C2070. The C2070 is thus bracketed by cards that are all within one percentage point, indicating that its performance level is very consistent with a well-defined group of contemporary and slightly older parts.

The head-to-head result is unambiguous: the K20c wins the only recorded benchmark, and the delta of 18.1% is not a marginal difference. The C2070 has no benchmark victories in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA compute generations, and the architectural gap explains most of the performance delta. The K20c is based on the GK110 chip, using the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The C2070 uses the GF100 chip with the Fermi architecture, on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the generational leap: the K20c packs 7,080 million transistors onto a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The C2070 has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, with a density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The K20c more than doubles the transistor count on a slightly larger die, and its density is more than twice as high.

The compute resources differ sharply. The K20c has 2,496 shading units, 208 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units. The C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The K20c has over five times the shading units and nearly four times the texture units, though it has fewer ROPs. The raw throughput numbers follow: the K20c delivers 3.524 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the C2070 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). The pixel rate for the K20c is 36.71 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s for the C2070, and the texture rate is 146.8 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also differs significantly. The K20c has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 208.0 GB/s. The C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, with a memory clock of 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s. The C2070 has more memory and a wider bus, but the K20c's much higher memory clock gives it 45% more bandwidth. The K20c also lists Vulkan support (version 1.2.175) while the C2070 has no Vulkan entry, though both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Power and physical characteristics show some differences. The K20c has a TDP of 225 W, while the C2070 has a TDP of 238 W. Both are dual-slot cards with the same power connector requirement (1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin) and the same suggested PSU of 550 W. Both use PCIe 2.0 x16. The K20c is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 248 mm (9.8 inches) for the C2070. The C2070 has one DVI output, while the K20c has no display outputs at all.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives only one recorded contest, so the win distribution is simple: the K20c wins the OpenCL test outright, and the C2070 has no wins in this comparison. The 18.1% margin in the single recorded test suggests that the K20c has a clear advantage in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, which are typical for GPU compute tasks such as scientific simulation, data processing, and rendering offload.

For the C2070, the absence of any benchmark win does not mean it lacks utility, but the recorded data shows it is the slower part. Its 6 GB memory capacity is larger than the K20c's 5 GB, and its 384-bit bus is wider, which could matter for workloads that need large memory footprints rather than raw throughput. However, the bandwidth deficit (143.4 GB/s versus 208.0 GB/s) means even memory-bound tasks may favor the K20c unless the working set exceeds 5 GB.

The C2070 also has a display output (1x DVI) while the K20c has none, making the C2070 the only one of the two that could drive a monitor directly. For a compute card used in a server or dedicated compute node, this is rarely relevant, but in a workstation context where a single card must also handle display output, the C2070 has a practical advantage.

The K20c's advantage in shading units (2,496 versus 448) and FP32 throughput (3.524 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS) makes it the obvious choice for compute kernels that are shader-bound or arithmetic-bound. The C2070's higher ROP count (48 versus 40) could theoretically help with fill-rate-bound tasks, but its pixel rate is less than half the K20c's, so that advantage does not translate into a practical win.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, based on the recorded data:

• Chip: GK110 (K20c) versus GF100 (C2070)
• Architecture: Kepler versus Fermi
• Generation: Tesla Kepler (Kxx) versus Tesla Fermi (x20xx)
• Process node: 28 nm versus 40 nm
• Transistors: 7,080 million versus 3,100 million
• Die size: 561 mm² versus 529 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.6M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm²
• Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 5 GB versus 6 GB
• Memory bus width: 320 bit versus 384 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 208.0 GB/s versus 143.4 GB/s
• Shading units: 2,496 versus 448
• Texture mapping units: 208 versus 56
• Render output units: 40 versus 48
• Pixel rate: 36.71 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 146.8 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s
• FP32 compute: 3.524 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS
• TDP: 225 W versus 238 W
• Display outputs: No outputs versus 1x DVI
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 versus none
• Length: 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 248 mm (9.8 inches)
• Release date: 2012-11-11 versus 2011-07-24
• Predecessor: Tesla Fermi versus Tesla
• Successor: Tesla Maxwell versus Tesla Kepler
• Launch MSRP: 3,199 USD for the K20c; no recorded launch MSRP for the C2070

Fields that are identical include the manufacturer (NVIDIA), foundry (TSMC), memory type (GDDR5), power connector requirement (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin), suggested PSU (550 W), bus interface (PCIe 2.0 x16), DirectX version (12 (11_0)), OpenGL version (4.6), slot width (Dual-slot), production status (End-of-life), and the absence of base and boost clocks in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11,479 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 18.1% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla C2070's score of 9,716.

Q: How does the K20c compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The K20c is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11,528), 1.3% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627), 1.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680), and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261).

Q: How does the C2070 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The C2070 is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724), 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665), 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653), and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780).

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The K20c has 208.0 GB/s, while the C2070 has 143.4 GB/s. The K20c's bandwidth is 45% higher, despite the C2070 having a wider 384-bit bus versus 320-bit on the K20c.

Q: Which card has a display output?

A: The C2070 has one DVI output, while the K20c has no display outputs.

Q: What is the FP32 compute capability of each card?

A: The K20c delivers 3.524 TFLOPS, while the C2070 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS).

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the NVIDIA Tesla K20c is the stronger compute card in this pairing. Its OpenCL score of 11,479 versus 9,716 gives an 18.1% lead, and its architectural specifications support that result. The K20c has over five times the shading units (2,496 versus 448), more than three times the FP32 compute (3.524 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS), and higher memory bandwidth (208.0 GB/s versus 143.4 GB/s). It also uses a much newer process node (28 nm versus 40 nm) with more than double the transistor density.

The C2070 retains a few specific advantages. It has 6 GB of memory versus 5 GB, a wider 384-bit memory bus, a higher ROP count (48 versus 40), and a DVI output. It also has a slightly lower TDP of 225 W versus 238 W, though the difference is small. For workloads that require more than 5 GB of memory, the C2070 may be the only option of the two. For workloads that need a display output, the C2070 is the only one that can provide it.

However, on pure compute performance, the K20c wins decisively. Its benchmark percentile (51 versus 47) and its position relative to its nearest rivals (all within 1.7% of mid-range cards like the GTX 1660) show that it performs at a level roughly comparable to much newer consumer GPUs. The C2070, by contrast, sits in a cluster with the Quadro P4000 and the GTX 1070, which are older or lower-tier parts.

The verdict is straightforward: for any compute workload where raw OpenCL performance matters, the K20c is the recommended choice. The C2070 should only be selected for its larger memory capacity or its display output, and even then the K20c's higher bandwidth may offset the memory size advantage in many scenarios. The recorded data shows no scenario where the C2070 outperforms the K20c in a benchmark, and its only nominally better specifications (memory size, bus width, ROPs) do not translate into a measurable performance win.