NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 sit at opposite ends of the GPU timeline, yet their average benchmark scores place them within 0.7% of each other. The GTX 1070, a Pascal-era consumer card from 2016, averages 9780 points, while the Tesla C2070, a Fermi-based compute accelerator from 2011, averages 9716 points. This statistical near-tie masks a fundamental generational gap: the GTX 1070 leads by 360.1% in the shared OpenCL test, but the Tesla C2070 remains a relevant reference point for legacy compute workloads. The data below dissects how two GPUs with nearly identical aggregate scores deliver vastly different performance profiles.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the GTX 1070 and the Tesla C2070?

A: The GTX 1070 averages 9780 points, while the Tesla C2070 averages 9716 points. This yields a delta of 0.7% in favor of the GTX 1070, making the aggregate difference statistically negligible.

Q: Which GPU wins the only head-to-head benchmark available?

A: The GTX 1070 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 44700 against the Tesla C2070's 9716, a 360.1% advantage.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The GTX 1070 packs 22.9 million transistors per mm² on a 314 mm² die, totaling 7,200 million transistors. The Tesla C2070 has a density of 5.9M per mm² on a larger 529 mm² die, with 3,100 million transistors.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 1070 delivers 256.3 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the Tesla C2070 provides 143.4 GB/s over a wider 384-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 1070 achieves 107.7 GPixel/s, which is substantially higher than the Tesla C2070's 16.07 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the TDP comparison?

A: The GTX 1070 has a TDP of 150 W, while the Tesla C2070 draws 238 W, making the Tesla more power-hungry despite its lower performance.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1070 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP104 chip, manufactured at TSMC's 16 nm process node. The Tesla C2070 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process. This process shrink alone explains much of the performance gap: the GTX 1070 crams 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, achieving a density of 22.9M per mm², whereas the Tesla C2070 spreads 3,100 million transistors across 529 mm² at just 5.9M per mm². The newer node allows the GTX 1070 to operate at a base clock of 1506 MHz with a boost of 1683 MHz, while the Tesla C2070 has no listed base or boost clocks in the data.

The shading unit count differs dramatically: the GTX 1070 features 1920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, compared to the Tesla C2070's 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 1070's FP32 throughput reaches 6.463 TFLOPS, while the Tesla C2070 manages 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 1070 also supports FP16 at 101.0 GFLOPS (1:64), a feature the Tesla C2070 lacks entirely. Memory configurations diverge as well: the GTX 1070 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the Tesla C2070 has 6 GB on a 384-bit bus. The GTX 1070's memory runs at 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective), versus the Tesla's 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). Neither card features ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those architectures.

The GTX 1070 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla C2070 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1070 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Tesla C2070. Display outputs on the GTX 1070 include 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the Tesla C2070 offers only a single DVI port, reflecting its compute-focused design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 1070 scores 44700 against the Tesla C2070's 9716. This 360.1% delta is the clearest signal of generational improvement. The GTX 1070's FP32 throughput of 6.463 TFLOPS versus the Tesla C2070's 1,027.7 GFLOPS provides the hardware basis for this OpenCL dominance. The GTX 1070 also benefits from a memory bandwidth of 256.3 GB/s, nearly double the Tesla's 143.4 GB/s, which helps in compute tasks that are bandwidth-sensitive.

However, the aggregate scores tell a different story. The GTX 1070's average of 9780 comes from 11 benchmark entries, including Passmark tests for DirectX 9 (197), DirectX 10 (82), DirectX 11 (100), DirectX 12 (48), G2D (846), G3D (13498), and GPU Compute (6102), plus Geekbench Metal (18801), OpenCL (44700), Vulkan (22121), and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1082). The Tesla C2070's average of 9716 is derived from a single OpenCL score. This disparity in test coverage means the averages are not directly comparable in scope; the GTX 1070's broader test suite includes gaming-oriented benchmarks like Passmark G3D, where it scores 13498, while the Tesla C2070 lacks such entries entirely.

In the nearest rival comparisons, the GTX 1070 sits 0.2% behind the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803), 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9832), and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9724). The Tesla C2070, for its part, is 0.1% behind the Tesla M10 (9724), 0.5% ahead of the Quadro P4000 (9665), and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9653). Both cards share a 47th percentile ranking among all GPUs, reinforcing their comparable standing in the broader performance distribution.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 | NVIDIA Tesla C2070 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Fermi |

| Chip | GP104 | GF100 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 314 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.9M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1506 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1683 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 2002 MHz / 8 Gbps effective | 747 MHz / 3 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.3 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1920 | 448 |

| TMUs | 120 | 56 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 107.7 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 202.0 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.463 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 101.0 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not listed |

| TDP | 150 W | 238 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | Not listed |

| Length | 267 mm / 10.5 inches | 248 mm / 9.8 inches |

| Height | 112 mm / 4.4 inches | Not listed |

| Width | 40 mm / 1.6 inches | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2016-06-09 | 2011-07-24 |

| Launch MSRP | 379 USD | Not listed |

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1070 wins decisively in every measurable compute and graphics metric from the data. Its FP32 throughput is 6.3x higher, its pixel rate is 6.7x faster, and its texture rate is 6.3x greater. The GTX 1070's memory bandwidth advantage of 256.3 GB/s versus 143.4 GB/s makes it better suited for modern workloads that demand high data throughput, such as real-time rendering, machine learning inference, and high-resolution gaming. Its support for Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) gives it access to current API features that the Tesla C2070 cannot utilize. The GTX 1070 also wins on efficiency: it delivers more than six times the FP32 performance while consuming 88 W less power, with a TDP of 150 W against the Tesla's 238 W. The 8 GB memory capacity is also more practical for modern datasets than the Tesla's 6 GB.

The Tesla C2070, despite its age, retains a few structural advantages. Its 384-bit memory bus is wider than the GTX 1070's 256-bit bus, though the lower clock speed negates this in practice. The Tesla C2070's single OpenCL score of 9716, while far below the GTX 1070's 44700, still places it in the same 47th percentile, indicating it can handle legacy compute tasks adequately. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while smaller, may be sufficient for older scientific or financial simulations that were designed around Fermi-era hardware. The card's dual-slot design and 248 mm length make it physically shorter than the GTX 1070's 267 mm, which could matter in space-constrained server chassis. The Tesla C2070 also has a lower transistor density (5.9M per mm²), which historically correlates with better thermal headroom per transistor, though the data does not include thermal performance metrics.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most users: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 outperforms the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 by 360.1% in the only shared benchmark, while drawing 88 W less power and offering more memory, newer APIs, and a smaller die. The GTX 1070's 6.463 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the Tesla C2070's 1,027.7 GFLOPS makes it the superior option for any compute-heavy workload, from OpenCL acceleration to modern DirectX 12 gaming. Its 8 GB memory and 256.3 GB/s bandwidth further cement its position for datasets that the Tesla's 6 GB and 143.4 GB/s cannot handle efficiently.

The Tesla C2070's only defense is its historical role as a compute accelerator. Its 384-bit bus and 6 GB capacity were respectable in 2011, and its single OpenCL score of 9716 places it in the same percentile as the GTX 1070, suggesting that for simple, legacy compute tasks, it remains functional. However, the absence of Vulkan support, the lower DirectX 12 feature level (11_0), and the lack of FP16 capability make it unsuitable for modern software stacks. The GTX 1070 is the pick for anyone needing current performance, while the Tesla C2070 only makes sense for maintaining legacy systems that cannot migrate away from Fermi-era drivers or specific compute kernels. The 47th percentile ranking for both cards underscores that neither is a top-tier performer today, but the GTX 1070's architectural advantages ensure it remains relevant, whereas the Tesla C2070 is a relic whose 238 W TDP and 550 W PSU requirement are hard to justify.