GPU Comparison

NVIDIA’s Tesla K80 and Quadro RTX 4000 are both end-of-life workstation cards, but they target completely different eras and workloads. The K80 is a Kepler-era compute card with no display outputs, while the RTX 4000 is a Turing-generation professional GPU with modern features. Benchmark data shows the RTX 4000 dominates in every head-to-head test, but the K80 still holds its own in raw compute density for its age. This analysis breaks down where each card wins, the architectural gulf between them, and what the numbers actually mean for buyers.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro RTX 4000 wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4000 scores 74,540 against the K80’s 18,620, a 75% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is nearly identical, 78,844 versus 19,111, a 75.8% lead. These are not marginal wins; they are generational blowouts.

The Tesla K80’s only claim to relevance comes from its specialized design. It has no display outputs, meaning it was built exclusively for compute offload, not for driving a monitor. Its 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus delivers 240.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which remains respectable for certain memory-bound workloads. However, the RTX 4000 counters with 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus that achieves 416.0 GB/s, 73% more bandwidth despite less capacity.

For real-world use cases, the RTX 4000 is the clear winner in anything involving graphics, ray tracing, or modern APIs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K80 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RTX 4000 also has 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI inference, features the K80 lacks entirely. If your workload involves rendering, simulation, or machine learning, the RTX 4000 is the only sensible choice.

The K80’s niche is legacy compute. Its 2,496 shading units and 4.113 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are overshadowed by the RTX 4000’s 7.119 TFLOPS, but the K80 was designed for double-precision-heavy HPC tasks common in scientific computing of its era. The data doesn’t include double-precision benchmarks, so this remains a qualitative observation. For modern workloads, the RTX 4000’s 2:1 FP16 ratio (14.24 TFLOPS) gives it a massive advantage in mixed-precision AI workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is vast. The Tesla K80 uses the GK210 chip, built on Kepler 2.0 architecture at TSMC’s 28 nm process. It packs 7,100 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.7 million per mm². The RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip, based on Turing architecture at 12 nm, with 13,600 million transistors on a slightly smaller 545 mm² die, a density of 25.0 million per mm², nearly double.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The K80 runs at a 562 MHz base and 824 MHz boost, while the RTX 4000 operates at 1,005 MHz base and 1,545 MHz boost. That’s a 78% higher boost clock for the Turing card, which explains much of its performance advantage. Memory clocks also differ dramatically: the K80’s memory runs at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the RTX 4000’s memory runs at 1,625 MHz (13 Gbps effective).

Shader and texture configurations reveal different design philosophies. The K80 has 2,496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RTX 4000 has slightly fewer shading units at 2,304, but fewer TMUs (144) and more ROPs (64). Pixel rate favors the RTX 4000 at 98.88 GPixel/s versus 42.85 GPixel/s, and texture rate is also higher at 222.5 GTexel/s versus 171.4 GTexel/s.

The RTX 4000 introduces hardware that the K80 simply doesn’t have: 36 RT cores for ray tracing and 288 tensor cores for AI acceleration. It also supports newer API features, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, versus the K80’s older DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Power efficiency is another major divider, the RTX 4000 draws 160 W TDP versus the K80’s 300 W, and it fits in a single slot versus the K80’s dual-slot design. The RTX 4000 also has display outputs (3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C), while the K80 has none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two head-to-head benchmarks exist in the data, but both tell the same story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4000 scores 74,540 against the K80’s 18,620, a 75% margin. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 4000 scores 78,844 against 19,111, a 75.8% margin. These are the only direct comparisons available, and the RTX 4000 wins both by overwhelming margins.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the RTX 4000 has far more data points. Its Passmark scores show a mixed profile: 15,117 in G3D, 6,176 in GPU Compute, 846 in G2D, and lower scores in DirectX-specific tests (205 in DX9, 128 in DX11, 108 in DX10, 52 in DX12). The K80 has no Passmark data, only the two Geekbench scores. The RTX 4000’s average benchmark score is 17,789, placing it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs. The K80’s average is 18,866, placing it in the 63rd percentile, a quirk of the limited benchmark set, not a sign of real parity.

The RTX 4000’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (0.7% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (0.9% ahead), AMD Radeon 780M (1.1% ahead), and AMD Radeon Pro 560 (1.4% ahead). The K80’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (0.4% ahead), NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (0.5% behind), NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (0.9% behind), and AMD Radeon RX 6600 (0.9% behind). These deltas are small, indicating the K80’s two scores place it in a competitive mid-range pack despite its age.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000. It delivers 7.119 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Tesla K80’s 4.113 TFLOPS. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4000 scores 74,540 versus 18,620, a 75% lead.

Q: Does the Tesla K80 support modern APIs?

A: No. The K80 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RTX 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which includes newer features like ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Q: Can the Tesla K80 output video to a display?

A: No. The K80 has no display outputs. It is a compute-only card. The RTX 4000 has 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C outputs.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000. Despite having 8 GB versus the K80’s 12 GB, the RTX 4000 achieves 416.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 240.6 GB/s, thanks to faster GDDR6 memory.

Q: Does the RTX 4000 support ray tracing or AI acceleration?

A: Yes. It has 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores. The Tesla K80 has neither, as it predates those technologies.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000. It has a 160 W TDP versus the K80’s 300 W, and it requires a 450 W suggested PSU versus 700 W for the K80.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Quadro RTX 4000 is the superior card in every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by over 75%, offers more than 2.7x the FP32 throughput (7.119 TFLOPS versus 4.113 TFLOPS), delivers 73% more memory bandwidth, and supports modern features like ray tracing and tensor cores that the K80 lacks entirely. It also does all this at half the power draw (160 W versus 300 W) in a single-slot form factor.

The Tesla K80’s only advantages are its larger memory capacity (12 GB versus 8 GB) and its higher percentile ranking (63rd versus 61st), the latter being an artifact of its limited benchmark data. For anyone considering these cards today, the RTX 4000 is the obvious pick for workstation tasks, graphics work, or any compute workload that can leverage Turing’s feature set. The K80 is only relevant for legacy compute deployments where its specific Kepler-era capabilities are required, and even then, its lack of display outputs and older API support make it a niche choice. If the choice is between these two, the RTX 4000 wins on every benchmark and every architectural metric that matters.