NVIDIA Tesla C2075 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm records an average benchmark score of 12,625, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. That puts the K20Xm roughly 21.4% higher overall.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The K20Xm scores 17,215 versus the C2075's 10,400, a 65.5% advantage for the K20Xm. The C2075 has no recorded Geekbench Metal score, while the K20Xm also posts 8,035 in that test.

Q: What are the transistor counts and process nodes?

A: The K20Xm uses 7,080 million transistors on a 28 nm TSMC process, while the C2075 uses 3,000 million transistors on a 40 nm process. The K20Xm achieves a transistor density of 12.6M per mm² versus 5.8M per mm² for the C2075.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus. However, the K20Xm's memory runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) with 249.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the C2075's memory runs at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The K20Xm has 2,688 shading units and 224 TMUs, compared to the C2075's 448 shading units and 56 TMUs. Both have 48 ROPs.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each?

A: The K20Xm sits at the 52nd percentile among all GPUs, while the C2075 sits at the 48th percentile. The K20Xm's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT, scores 12,710 (0.7% higher), while the C2075's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, scores 10,362 (0.4% lower).

Architecture Differences

The K20Xm is built on the GK110 chip under the Kepler architecture, while the C2075 uses the GF110 chip under the Fermi 2.0 architecture. This is a generational shift: the K20Xm belongs to the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation, and the C2075 belongs to the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation. The K20Xm's predecessor is listed as Tesla Fermi, and its successor is Tesla Maxwell; the C2075's predecessor is simply Tesla, and its successor is Tesla Kepler.

Fabrication technology differs substantially. The K20Xm is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the C2075 uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This allows the K20Xm to pack 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.6M per mm². The C2075 holds 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, for a density of 5.8M per mm². The K20Xm's transistor count is more than double that of the C2075, despite only a modest increase in die area.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The K20Xm features 2,688 shading units and 224 TMUs, versus 448 shading units and 56 TMUs on the C2075. Both cards have 48 ROPs, so pixel output parity exists at the ROP level, but the massive gap in shading and texturing hardware drives most performance differences.

Memory architecture is similar in capacity and bus width (6 GB GDDR5, 384-bit), but the K20Xm runs its memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) on the C2075. That results in 249.6 GB/s versus 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The K20Xm also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the C2075 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

The C2075 includes a single DVI display output, while the K20Xm has no display outputs at all. This reflects their intended roles as compute accelerators, with the C2075 retaining a minimal display capability. Power connectors also differ: the C2075 requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin, while the K20Xm's connector configuration is not specified. Both are dual-slot cards, and both carry a 550 W suggested PSU rating. The C2075's TDP is 247 W, slightly higher than the K20Xm's 235 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The K20Xm scores 17,215 against the C2075's 10,400, a 65.5% advantage. This is not a marginal gap; it is a dominant win that reflects the architectural and specification differences described above.

To put the K20Xm's score in context, its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT at 12,710 (0.7% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 at 12,773 (1.2% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 at 12,830 (1.6% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro 455 at 12,831 (1.6% higher). The K20Xm's OpenCL score of 17,215 is well above all of those averages, indicating that its OpenCL performance is a strong point relative to its overall average.

The C2075's nearest rivals are clustered much lower: the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10,362 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481 (0.8% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A at 10,273 (1.2% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X at 10,582 (1.7% lower). The C2075's average of 10,400 sits squarely in this range, and its OpenCL score matches its average exactly because that is the only benchmark recorded for it.

The K20Xm also has a Geekbench Metal score of 8,035, which is not available for the C2075. This means the K20Xm can be evaluated in two compute APIs, while the C2075 only has OpenCL data. In terms of the head-to-head win tally, the K20Xm takes 1 win and the C2075 takes 0.

The 65.5% delta in OpenCL is consistent with the hardware differences: the K20Xm has 6 times the shading units, 4 times the TMUs, and 66% more memory bandwidth. The pixel rate also favors the K20Xm at 40.99 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 164.0 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 3.935 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 3,000 million |

| Die size | 561 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.6M / mm² | 5.8M / mm² |

| Memory clock | 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) | 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) |

| Memory bandwidth | 249.6 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2688 | 448 |

| TMUs | 224 | 56 |

| Pixel rate | 40.99 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 164.0 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.935 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 235 W | 247 W |

| Power connectors | Not specified | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI |

| Vulkan support | 1.2.175 | None |

| Release date | 2012-11-11 | 2011-07-24 |

| Launch MSRP | 7,699 USD | Not available |

Both cards share 6 GB GDDR5 memory, a 384-bit bus, 48 ROPs, dual-slot width, a 550 W suggested PSU, DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and end-of-life production status. The K20Xm is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 248 mm (9.8 inches) for the C2075.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The K20Xm outperforms the C2075 by a wide margin in the only benchmark they share, and its architectural advantages are substantial across every compute-relevant specification. The K20Xm's 65.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the headline number, but the underlying hardware tells the same story: more shading units, more TMUs, higher memory bandwidth, and nearly four times the FP32 throughput.

For workloads that rely on OpenCL compute, the K20Xm is the clear choice. Its 17,215 score places it far above the C2075's 10,400, and its average benchmark score of 12,625 versus 10,400 confirms that the advantage persists beyond a single test. The K20Xm also offers Vulkan support (1.2.175), which the C2075 lacks entirely, and it has a recorded Metal score of 8,035 that the C2075 cannot match.

The C2075 is not without merit. It is a functional compute card with 6 GB of memory and a 384-bit bus, and its 48 ROPs match the K20Xm. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 550X (0.8% lower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (1.2% higher), which places it in a modest performance tier. For users constrained by PCIe 2.0 slots or those who require a DVI output, the C2075 has a practical advantage. Its TDP of 247 W is also only 12 W higher than the K20Xm, so power draw is comparable.

However, the K20Xm's launch MSRP of 7,699 USD was significantly higher, and it delivers proportionally more performance. The K20Xm's percentile ranking of 52 versus 48 for the C2075 reflects its higher standing among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 670 and GTX 590, which are far more capable than the C2075's rivals.

Where Each One Wins

The K20Xm wins in every compute-heavy scenario. Its OpenCL score of 17,215 versus 10,400 means it dominates in general-purpose GPU computing tasks that leverage OpenCL. Its 3.935 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS makes it suitable for single-precision floating-point workloads, including scientific simulations, data processing, and machine learning inference. The 249.6 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 150.3 GB/s helps with memory-bound applications, and the 164.0 GTexel/s texture rate versus 32.14 GTexel/s benefits texture-heavy compute kernels. The K20Xm also has Vulkan support, making it usable in modern compute APIs, and its PCIe 3.0 interface provides double the bus bandwidth of the C2075's PCIe 2.0.

The C2075 wins in specific practical scenarios. Its single DVI output means it can drive a display, while the K20Xm cannot. Its shorter length of 248 mm versus 267 mm may fit in more compact chassis. Its lower transistor count and older architecture may be easier to support in legacy systems, and its PCIe 2.0 interface is compatible with older motherboards that lack PCIe 3.0 slots. The C2075 also has a slightly higher TDP at 247 W versus 235 W, but both cards require a 550 W suggested PSU, so system power requirements are identical.

For users who need a compute accelerator with no display output, the K20Xm is the superior choice. For users who need a minimal display capability or have legacy PCIe 2.0 infrastructure, the C2075 remains functional. The benchmark data shows the K20Xm winning 1 head-to-head test with 0 losses, and its average score is 21.4% higher. There is no recorded scenario where the C2075 outperforms the K20Xm in compute performance.