NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is emphatic. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB scores 27,001, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17,468. That is a 54.6% advantage for the GTX 1060 3 GB. The margin is substantial, not marginal, and it flips the expected hierarchy based on the two cards' positions in the overall GPU landscape.

Looking at the broader context, the GTX 1060 3 GB sits at the 64th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19,334. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX at 19,410 (a 0.4% gap against the GTX 1060), the NVIDIA TITAN Xp at 19,177 (0.8% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 at 19,164 (0.9% behind). The Tesla K40c, by comparison, lands at the 61st percentile with an average score of 17,468. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17,509 (0.2% ahead of the K40c), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17,551 (0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon 780M at 17,588 (0.7% ahead). So while both cards are within a few percentage points of very different competitors, the head-to-head delta between them is enormous.

The database records one win for the GTX 1060 3 GB and zero for the Tesla K40c in their shared test. That single result, however, tells a clear story: the Pascal-based consumer card outpaces the Kepler-based compute card by more than half in raw OpenCL throughput. The K40c's higher theoretical FP32 peak (5.046 TFLOPS versus 3.935 TFLOPS) does not translate into a benchmark victory. Real-world execution, driver maturity, and clock behavior matter more than paper specifications.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The GTX 1060 3 GB uses the GP106 chip built on TSMC's 16 nm process, packing 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 22.0M per mm², a figure enabled by the mature Pascal design. The Tesla K40c, in contrast, uses the GK180 chip on a 28 nm process from the same foundry, with 7,080 million transistors spread across a 561 mm² die, yielding a density of just 12.6M per mm². The K40c is physically larger and older, but it carries far more silicon per unit area.

Clock speeds reinforce the process advantage. The GTX 1060 3 GB runs at a 1506 MHz base and 1708 MHz boost, while the K40c operates at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. That is roughly double the clock frequency on the newer card. Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 1060 uses 2002 MHz GDDR5 with 8 Gbps effective transfer, while the K40c uses 1502 MHz GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective. The memory bus width tells the opposite story, the K40c has a 384 bit bus versus 192 bit on the GTX 1060, but the K40c's higher bandwidth (288.4 GB/s versus 192.2 GB/s) comes from that wider interface, not from faster memory.

Shading unit counts favor the Tesla: 2,880 versus 1,152. Texture mapping units are 240 versus 72. Raster output units are equal at 48. Yet the GTX 1060 achieves a higher pixel rate (81.98 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s) because of its much higher clocks, while the K40c wins texture rate (210.2 GTexel/s versus 123.0 GTexel/s) due to its massive TMU count. The K40c also leads in FP32 compute at 5.046 TFLOPS versus 3.935 TFLOPS, but the GTX 1060 offers FP16 support at 61.49 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature the K40c lacks entirely.

API support differs as well. The GTX 1060 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K40c is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 1060 has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the K40c has no outputs at all, reflecting its compute-focused design. Power delivery also diverges: the GTX 1060 uses a single 6-pin connector with a 120 W TDP and a suggested 300 W PSU, whereas the K40c requires a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector, draws 245 W, and needs a 550 W PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1060 3 GB wins in any scenario that depends on OpenCL throughput, as the head-to-head result shows. It also wins on power efficiency, drawing 120 W versus 245 W, and on physical footprint, with a 250 mm length (9.8 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches) for the K40c. For gaming or workstation use that requires a display output, the GTX 1060 is the only option of the two, since the K40c offers no video connectors. The Pascal architecture's higher clocks and newer process make it better suited to latency-sensitive workloads, where the 1708 MHz boost provides a clear advantage over the K40c's 876 MHz ceiling.

The Tesla K40c wins on memory capacity, offering 12 GB versus 3 GB, and on memory bandwidth, at 288.4 GB/s versus 192.2 GB/s. That makes it the better choice for datasets that exceed the GTX 1060's frame buffer, such as large compute arrays or multi-buffer rendering. The K40c also has more shading units and texture units, giving it higher theoretical texture throughput (210.2 GTexel/s) and FP32 peak (5.046 TFLOPS). For workloads that are heavily parallel and can saturate those units without hitting driver or clock bottlenecks, the K40c's raw resources could deliver higher throughput, even if the database's single OpenCL test does not show it.

The GTX 1060 wins on transistor efficiency, with 22.0M transistors per mm² versus 12.6M, and on modern feature support, including DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. The K40c's older Kepler generation predates these features, limiting its use in contemporary graphics APIs. The GTX 1060 also wins on release timing, arriving on 2016-08-17 versus the K40c's 2013-10-07, meaning it benefits from three additional years of driver optimization and software ecosystem maturity.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB has an average benchmark score of 19,334, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17,468. The GTX 1060 holds a 54.6% lead in their shared OpenCL test.

Q: What memory capacities do these cards offer?

A: The Tesla K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384 bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1060 3 GB has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192 bit bus, with 192.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The GTX 1060 3 GB was released on 2016-08-17, and the Tesla K40c on 2013-10-07.

Q: Can the Tesla K40c output video to a display?

A: No. The Tesla K40c has no display outputs. The GTX 1060 3 GB includes 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX 1060 3 GB has a TDP of 120 W and requires a 300 W power supply. The Tesla K40c has a TDP of 245 W and requires a 550 W power supply.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 1060 3 GB supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla K40c supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB | NVIDIA Tesla K40c |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.0M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1506 MHz | 745 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1708 MHz | 876 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1152 | 2880 |

| TMUs | 72 | 240 |

| ROPs | 48 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 81.98 GPixel/s | 52.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.0 GTexel/s | 210.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.935 TFLOPS | 5.046 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 61.49 GFLOPS (1:64) | None |

| TDP | 120 W | 245 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 250 mm (9.8 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2016-08-17 | 2013-10-07 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 7,699 USD |