
Radeon R9 270
Popular choices:

Tesla K20m
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
Radeon R9 270
2013Why buy it
- ✅Costs $3,020 less on MSRP ($179 MSRP vs $3,199 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1636.3% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 24.1 vs 1.4 G3D/$ ($179 MSRP vs $3,199 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 150W instead of 225W, a 75W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
Tesla K20m
2013Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌1687.2% HIGHER MSRP$3,199 MSRPvs$179 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 1.4 vs 24.1 G3D/$ ($3,199 MSRP vs $179 MSRP).
- ❌50% higher power demand at 225W vs 150W.
Radeon R9 270
2013Tesla K20m
2013Why buy it
- ✅Costs $3,020 less on MSRP ($179 MSRP vs $3,199 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1636.3% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 24.1 vs 1.4 G3D/$ ($179 MSRP vs $3,199 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 150W instead of 225W, a 75W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌1687.2% HIGHER MSRP$3,199 MSRPvs$179 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 1.4 vs 24.1 G3D/$ ($3,199 MSRP vs $179 MSRP).
- ❌50% higher power demand at 225W vs 150W.
Quick Answers
So, is Tesla K20m better than Radeon R9 270?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does Radeon R9 270 make more sense than Tesla K20m?
Games Benchmarks
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 9800X3D 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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Radeon R9 270 | Tesla K20m |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 77 FPS | 102 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 83 FPS |
| high | 49 FPS | 66 FPS |
| ultra | 32 FPS | 39 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 65 FPS | 85 FPS |
| medium | 53 FPS | 71 FPS |
| high | 37 FPS | 50 FPS |
| ultra | 23 FPS | 29 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 23 FPS | 28 FPS |
| medium | 22 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 14 FPS | 17 FPS |
| ultra | 12 FPS | 15 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Radeon R9 270 | Tesla K20m |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 86 FPS | 62 FPS |
| high | 66 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 41 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 65 FPS | 49 FPS |
| medium | 44 FPS | 32 FPS |
| high | 32 FPS | 24 FPS |
| ultra | 21 FPS | 17 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 23 FPS | 18 FPS |
| medium | 16 FPS | 12 FPS |
| high | 13 FPS | 9 FPS |
| ultra | 9 FPS | 7 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Radeon R9 270 | Tesla K20m |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 194 FPS | 199 FPS |
| medium | 155 FPS | 160 FPS |
| high | 129 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 97 FPS | 100 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 145 FPS | 150 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 120 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 100 FPS |
| ultra | 73 FPS | 75 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 100 FPS |
| medium | 78 FPS | 80 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 66 FPS |
| ultra | 48 FPS | 50 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Radeon R9 270 | Tesla K20m |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 182 FPS |
| medium | 111 FPS | 146 FPS |
| high | 96 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 82 FPS | 94 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 100 FPS | 127 FPS |
| medium | 82 FPS | 104 FPS |
| high | 71 FPS | 89 FPS |
| ultra | 56 FPS | 66 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 59 FPS | 74 FPS |
| medium | 46 FPS | 57 FPS |
| high | 36 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 26 FPS | 31 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 270 and Tesla K20m

Radeon R9 270
Radeon R9 270
The Radeon R9 270 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 13 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 925 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,306 points. Launch price was $179.

Tesla K20m
Tesla K20m
The Tesla K20m is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 5 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 706 MHz. It has 2496 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,432 points. Launch price was $3,199.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 270 scores 4,306 and the Tesla K20m reaches 4,432 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 270 is built on GCN 1.0 while the Tesla K20m uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,280 (Radeon R9 270) vs 2,496 (Tesla K20m). Raw compute: 2.368 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 270) vs 3.524 TFLOPS (Tesla K20m).
| Feature | Radeon R9 270 | Tesla K20m |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,306 | 4,432+3% |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280 | 2496+95% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.368 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS+49% |
| ROPs | 32 | 40+25% |
| TMUs | 80 | 208+160% |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB+54% | 208 KB |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1.25 MB+150% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 270 | Tesla K20m |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 256-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 270) vs 1.25 MB (Tesla K20m) — the Tesla K20m has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R9 270 | Tesla K20m |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+300% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1.25 MB+150% |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 270 draws 150W versus the Tesla K20m's 225W — a 40% difference. The Radeon R9 270 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon R9 270) vs 350W (Tesla K20m). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R9 270 | Tesla K20m |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W-33% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 350W-30% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Perf/Watt | 28.7+46% | 19.7 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 270 launched at $179 MSRP, while the Tesla K20m launched at $3199. The Radeon R9 270 costs 94.4% less ($3020 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 24.1 (Radeon R9 270) vs 1.4 (Tesla K20m) — the Radeon R9 270 offers 1621.4% better value.
| Feature | Radeon R9 270 | Tesla K20m |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $179-94% | $3199 |
| Performance per Dollar | 24.1+1621% | 1.4 |
| Codename | Curacao | GK110 |
| Release | November 13 2013 | January 5 2013 |
| Ranking | #476 | #470 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












