NVIDIA Tesla K20c vs NVIDIA Tesla M10 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear split between these two Tesla accelerators. The NVIDIA Tesla K20c wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 11,479 against the Tesla M10's 10,318. That is an 11.3% advantage for the K20c. Across the full average benchmark score, the K20c also leads, posting 11,479 versus the M10's 9,724 average (the M10's average is pulled down by its additional Vulkan result of 9,130, which has no K20c counterpart in the database).

The K20c sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the M10 sits at the 47th. This places the K20c slightly above the midpoint of the database, while the M10 falls just below it. In terms of nearest rivals, the K20c is within 1.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (which scores 11,627) and within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11,528). The M10's nearest rivals cluster much tighter: it is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716), within 0.6% of the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780), and within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653).

For use cases, the K20c is the stronger choice for OpenCL compute workloads where raw FP32 throughput matters. Its shading unit count of 2,496 versus 640, plus a texture rate of 146.8 GTexel/s versus 52.24 GTexel/s, gives it a substantial theoretical advantage in parallel compute tasks. The M10, by contrast, has no benchmark win in the recorded data. Its only advantage appears in the Vulkan API, where it records 9,130, a result the K20c has no recorded score for, but that is not a head-to-head victory.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA generations. The K20c uses the GK110 chip built on the Kepler architecture, while the M10 uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and both have the same transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The die sizes differ dramatically: the K20c's GK110 measures 561 mm² with 7,080 million transistors, while the M10's GM107 is just 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The K20c has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, yielding 208.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, which produces only 83.20 GB/s. Both run memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), but the wider bus on the K20c more than doubles the bandwidth. The M10 does have more capacity, which can matter for larger datasets that fit entirely in VRAM.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the K20c. It carries 2,496 shading units, 208 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units. The M10 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K20c's pixel rate is 36.71 GPixel/s versus 20.90 GPixel/s for the M10. FP32 performance is 3.524 TFLOPS for the K20c and 1.672 TFLOPS for the M10, a difference of roughly 2.1x.

The M10 has a base clock of 1033 MHz and a boost clock of 1306 MHz, while the K20c has no recorded base or boost clocks. Both cards have identical TDPs at 225 W, use dual-slot cooling, and share the same 267 mm length. The power connectors differ: the K20c requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin, while the M10 uses a single 8-pin. Both suggest a 550 W power supply. The K20c runs on PCIe 2.0 x16, while the M10 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Neither card has display outputs, which is typical for compute accelerators.

API support is nearly identical for DirectX (12 with 11_0 feature level) and OpenGL (4.6 on both). The Vulkan versions differ: the K20c supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the M10 supports Vulkan 1.4. This explains why the M10 has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score and the K20c does not.

The Verdict

For compute workloads that stress FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth, the data points squarely at the NVIDIA Tesla K20c. It delivers an 11.3% higher OpenCL score, 2.1x the FP32 throughput, and 2.5x the memory bandwidth of the M10. The K20c's 208.0 GB/s versus 83.20 GB/s is particularly important for memory-bound kernels. Its nearest rival comparison also shows it is competitive with modern consumer GPUs, sitting within 1.7% of the RX 7800 XT.

The NVIDIA Tesla M10 is the choice only when VRAM capacity is the limiting factor. Its 8 GB exceeds the K20c's 5 GB by 60%, which can accommodate larger models or datasets in a single allocation. The M10 also has a more modern architecture (Maxwell versus Kepler) and a newer Vulkan implementation, which may matter for specific software stacks. But in the recorded benchmarks, the M10 does not win a single comparison.

For most users, the K20c is the safer pick. It has a higher percentile ranking (51 versus 47), a higher average benchmark score (11,479 versus 9,724), and a clear head-to-head win. The M10's advantages are qualitative: newer architecture, higher VRAM capacity, and PCIe 3.0 support. If the workload is purely compute-bound and the data fits in 5 GB, the K20c should outperform the M10 in OpenCL-based tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11,479 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Tesla M10 scores 10,318. The K20c leads by 11.3%.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Tesla K20c has 5 GB of GDDR5, while the Tesla M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The K20c provides 208.0 GB/s over a 320-bit bus, while the M10 provides 83.20 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The K20c has roughly 2.5x the bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more recent?

A: The Tesla M10 was released in May 2016, while the Tesla K20c was released in November 2012. The M10 is newer by several years.

Q: Does the M10 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the M10 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,130 and supports Vulkan 1.4. The K20c supports Vulkan 1.2.175 but has no recorded Vulkan benchmark.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: Both cards have a 225 W TDP and suggest a 550 W power supply. The K20c uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors, while the M10 uses a single 8-pin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The Tesla K20c scores 11,479 against the Tesla M10's 10,318, giving the K20c an 11.3% advantage. This is a substantial margin for a compute workload. The K20c's shading unit count of 2,496 versus 640 explains much of this gap; the M10 would need roughly four times its shading units to match the K20c's raw compute capacity.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the K20c's OpenCL score places it just 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11,528) and 1.3% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627). The M10's OpenCL score of 10,318 is not directly compared to its nearest rivals in the database, but its average score of 9,724 puts it within 0.6% of the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780) and within 0.1% of the Tesla C2070 (9,716). This shows that the M10 performs at a level similar to a mid-range consumer GPU from its era, while the K20c competes with newer, higher-end parts.

The K20c's FP32 output of 3.524 TFLOPS is more than double the M10's 1.672 TFLOPS. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 146.8 GTexel/s versus 52.24 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is 36.71 GPixel/s versus 20.90 GPixel/s. Every raw throughput metric in the database favors the K20c by a wide margin, which aligns with its 11.3% benchmark victory.

The M10's only recorded edge is its Vulkan score of 9,130. Since the K20c has no Vulkan benchmark in the database, this cannot be compared directly. However, the M10's Vulkan result is notably lower than its own OpenCL result (9,130 versus 10,318), suggesting that even on the M10, OpenCL is the stronger API.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every hardware specification except for a few shared attributes. Both use a 28 nm TSMC process, have 12.6M transistors per mm², a 225 W TDP, dual-slot cooling, 267 mm length, a 550 W suggested PSU, no display outputs, and identical DirectX and OpenGL support.

Key differences:

• Chip and architecture: GK110 on Kepler versus GM107 on Maxwell.
• Transistors: 7,080 million versus 1,870 million.
• Die size: 561 mm² versus 148 mm².
• Memory size: 5 GB versus 8 GB.
• Memory bus: 320-bit versus 128-bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 208.0 GB/s versus 83.20 GB/s.
• Shading units: 2,496 versus 640.
• TMUs: 208 versus 40.
• ROPs: 40 versus 16.
• Pixel rate: 36.71 GPixel/s versus 20.90 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 146.8 GTexel/s versus 52.24 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 3.524 TFLOPS versus 1.672 TFLOPS.
• Clocks: M10 has base 1033 MHz and boost 1306 MHz; K20c has none recorded.
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin versus 1x 8-pin.
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Vulkan version: 1.2.175 versus 1.4.
• Release date: November 2012 versus May 2016.
• Launch MSRP: The K20c launched at 3,199 USD; the M10 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The transistor density being identical at 12.6M per mm² is notable, as it reflects the same manufacturing process. The K20c simply uses far more of that process, packing nearly four times the transistors onto a die that is roughly 3.8x larger. The M10 compensates with a newer architecture that achieves higher clocks per shading unit, but the sheer resource disparity in the K20c's favor proves decisive in the benchmark data.