Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 vs Tesla K20Xm

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Tesla K20Xm

#52

RTX A1000

MSRP: $749|Avg: $500

98%

#54

Radeon Pro 5700

MSRP: $799|Avg: $250

98%

#55

Quadro P4000

MSRP: $815|Avg: $290

96%

#57

Quadro RTX 3000

MSRP: $800|Avg: $891

92%

#58

RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $1700

90%

#59

Radeon Vega Frontier Edition

MSRP: $999|Avg: $150

87%

#85

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

1006%

#100

Tesla K20Xm

MSRP: $7699|Avg: N/A

100%

#105

Quadro T2000 (móvel)

MSRP: $500|Avg: $150

95%

#111

Quadro P520

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

92%

#113

Radeon Pro WX 3100

MSRP: $199|Avg: $65

88%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Tesla K20Xm is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.4% higher G3D Mark score and 200% more VRAM (6 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 270 / R7 370.

Insight	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370	Tesla K20Xm
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.4%)	✅Leading raw performance (+3.4%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+200%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

The Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 holds the technical lead. Priced at $149 (vs $7,699), it costs 98% less, resulting in a 4899.3% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370	Tesla K20Xm
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+4899.3%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($149)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($7,699)

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 Benchmark Check

Tesla K20Xm Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 and Tesla K20Xm

Radeon R9 270 / R7 370

The Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 925 MHz to 975 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 110W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,260 points.

Tesla K20Xm

The Tesla K20Xm is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 12 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 732 MHz. It has 2688 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 235W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,403 points. Launch price was $7,699.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 scores 4,260 and the Tesla K20Xm reaches 4,403 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 is built on GCN 1.0 while the Tesla K20Xm uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,280 (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370) vs 2,688 (Tesla K20Xm). Raw compute: 2.496 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370) vs 3.935 TFLOPS (Tesla K20Xm).

Feature	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370	Tesla K20Xm
G3D Mark Score	4,260	4,403+3%
Architecture	GCN 1.0	Kepler
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1280	2688+110%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.496 TFLOPS	3.935 TFLOPS+58%
ROPs	32	48+50%
TMUs	80	224+180%
L1 Cache	384 KB+71%	224 KB
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1.5 MB+200%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370	Tesla K20Xm
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Tesla K20Xm has 6 GB. The Tesla K20Xm offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370) vs 1.5 MB (Tesla K20Xm) — the Tesla K20Xm has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370	Tesla K20Xm
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	6 GB+200%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	256-bit+300%	64-bit
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1.5 MB+200%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 draws 110W versus the Tesla K20Xm's 235W — a 72.5% difference. The Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 450W (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370) vs 350W (Tesla K20Xm). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370	Tesla K20Xm
TDP	110W-53%	235W
Recommended PSU	450W	350W-22%
Power Connector	1x 6-pin	PCIe-powered
Length	220mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	—
Temp (Load)	70	—
Perf/Watt	38.7+107%	18.7

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $149, while the Tesla K20Xm launched at $7699. The Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).