NVIDIA Tesla K10 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded between these two accelerators is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla K10 trails at 14,029 points. That is an 18.5% advantage for the K20Xm, a substantial gap that signals a clear generational leap within the same Kepler architecture family.

Looking at the K10's position among its nearest rivals, the data shows it sits right on the edge of a tight cluster. The GeForce GTX 680 scores 14,150, which is only 0.9% higher than the K10. The AMD Radeon RX 570X lands at 13,871, a 1.1% deficit relative to the K10. The RTX A2000 Mobile and AMD Radeon 660M are similarly close, at 1.5% and 1.6% behind respectively. The K10 is essentially bracketed by consumer and professional parts, with no single rival dominating it by more than a single percentage point.

The K20Xm, by contrast, faces a different competitive picture. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT, scores 12,710, which is 0.7% lower. The GeForce GTX 670 is 1.2% behind, the GTX 590 is 1.6% behind, and the Radeon Pro 455 is also 1.6% behind. The K20Xm leads all four of its closest competitors, though the margins are narrow. Its advantage over the RX 7600M XT is under one percentage point, so the K20Xm is not dramatically faster than its immediate peers, but it does hold the top spot in that group.

The head-to-head delta of 18.5% in favor of the K20Xm is the single most important number in this comparison. The K10 cannot bridge that gap with any of its other attributes, as the benchmark result is the only measured performance data available. The K20Xm also has a second recorded benchmark, a Geekbench Metal score of 8,035, but the K10 has no corresponding Metal result, so that cannot be directly compared.

Where Each One Wins

The K20Xm wins the only direct benchmark, which makes it the clear choice for any workload that depends on OpenCL compute throughput. Its 17,215 score versus the K10's 14,029 means that for tasks like general-purpose GPU computing, physics simulations, or any OpenCL-accelerated application, the K20Xm should complete work roughly 18.5% faster.

The K10's strengths are not visible in the benchmark column, but they emerge in other recorded specifications. Its peak FP32 throughput is 2.289 TFLOPS, while the K20Xm reaches 3.935 TFLOPS, a 72% raw compute advantage for the larger chip. However, the K10 does have one area where it wins: its average benchmark score across all tests is 14,029, while the K20Xm's average is 12,625. This average is dragged down by the K20Xm's Metal score of 8,035, which is much lower than its OpenCL result. The K10's single OpenCL score is higher than the K20Xm's combined average, which suggests that in a mixed workload environment where both Metal and OpenCL are used, the K10 might appear more consistent.

The K20Xm also wins on memory capacity, with 6 GB versus 4 GB, and on memory bandwidth, with 249.6 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. That bandwidth difference is particularly important for memory-bound workloads, where data transfer speed becomes the bottleneck. The K20Xm's 384-bit bus versus the K10's 256-bit bus provides the underlying explanation for its 56% bandwidth advantage.

For users who prioritize pixel or texture throughput, the K20Xm is again ahead. It delivers 40.99 GPixel/s and 164.0 GTexel/s, while the K10 delivers 23.84 GPixel/s and 95.36 GTexel/s. Rendering workloads, whether they are 3D scenes or image processing pipelines, will scale with those rates.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture and manufactured on the same 28 nm process from TSMC, but they use completely different chips. The K10 uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The K20Xm uses the GK110 chip, a much larger design with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. That is exactly double the transistor count and 90% more die area.

The transistor density is nearly identical, with the K10 at 12.0M per mm² and the K20Xm at 12.6M per mm². The difference in density is small enough to be a process variation rather than a design change. The GK110 is essentially two GK104-class blocks in terms of transistor budget, but the architectural organization is not a simple doubling.

The shading unit counts tell a clear story. The K10 has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K20Xm has 2,688 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. That is 75% more shading units, 75% more TMUs, and 50% more ROPs. These structural differences map directly onto the FP32 and texture rate advantages recorded in the data.

Memory architecture also differs substantially. The K10 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s. The K20Xm uses 6 GB on a 384-bit bus, yielding 249.6 GB/s. The memory clock is also slightly different, with the K10 at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and the K20Xm at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The K20Xm's wider bus is the primary reason for its bandwidth lead.

Both cards use a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and have no display outputs, meaning they are compute-only accelerators. The K10 has a dual-slot cooler and requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector. The K20Xm is also dual-slot, but its power connector configuration is not recorded in the database. Both share the same suggested PSU rating of 550 W.

The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither card has any ray tracing or tensor cores, which is expected for this era of Kepler hardware.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm as the stronger accelerator for OpenCL-based workloads, with an 18.5% head-to-head lead over the K10. Its advantages in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and raw FP32 throughput are all consistent with that benchmark result. The K20Xm maintains leads across every measured performance category.

The K10 is not without a place. Its average benchmark score of 14,029 exceeds the K20Xm's average of 12,625, which is driven down by the K20Xm's weak Metal score of 8,035. If a user knows their workloads will run under OpenCL, the K20Xm is the obvious pick. If a user has a mixed environment or is uncertain about the API, the K10's higher average might be more appealing.

The K20Xm also has a higher launch MSRP of 7,699 USD, compared to the K10's 5,099 USD. That is a 51% price premium for an 18.5% performance lead in the only direct benchmark. The K20Xm offers more memory and compute capacity, so the price difference is not purely about the benchmark score.

For power consumption, the K20Xm is rated at 235 W, only 10 W above the K10's 225 W, while delivering roughly 72% more FP32 throughput. That efficiency ratio is not directly measured, but the numbers suggest the K20Xm is a more efficient compute per watt.

The production status is end-of-life for both cards, and both belong to the same Tesla Kepler generation and are successors to Tesla Fermi and predecessors to Tesla Maxwell. The release dates are seven months apart, with the K10 in April 2012 and the K20Xm in November 2012.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the K10 scores 14,029. That is an 18.5% difference.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The K10 has an average score of 14,029, based on its single OpenCL result. The K20Xm has an average of 12,625, based on its OpenCL score of 17,215 and Metal score of 8,035.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The K20Xm has 249.6 GB/s from a 384-bit bus, while the K10 has 160.0 GB/s from a 256-bit bus.

Q: Are these cards the same size?

A: Both are dual-slot, but the K10 is 272 mm long (10.7 inches) and the K20Xm is 267 mm long (10.5 inches). The K10 is 5 mm longer.

Q: Do these cards have display outputs?

A: No. Both cards are recorded as having no display outputs, making them compute-only accelerators.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The K20Xm has 7,080 million transistors, exactly double the K10's 3,540 million transistors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla K10 | NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm |

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

| Chip | GK104 | GK110 |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 249.6 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps) | 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps) |

| Shading Units | 1,536 | 2,688 |

| TMUs | 128 | 224 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.84 GPixel/s | 40.99 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 95.36 GTexel/s | 164.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.289 TFLOPS | 3.935 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 225 W | 235 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | Not recorded |

| Length | 272 mm (10.7 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2012-04-30 | 2012-11-11 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,099 USD | 7,699 USD |

| OpenCL Score | 14,029 | 17,215 |

| Metal Score | Not recorded | 8,035 |

| Average Score | 14,029 | 12,625 |

| Percentile | 55 | 52 |