NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 represent two very different eras of GPU design. The C2075 is a Fermi-architecture compute card from 2011, while the GTX 1070 is a Pascal-architecture consumer card from 2016. Benchmark data shows a single direct comparison, with the GTX 1070 winning decisively in OpenCL performance. However, each card has distinct characteristics that matter for specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 scores 44,700, which is 76.7% higher than the Tesla C2075's score of 10,400. The GTX 1070 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available.

Q: How do their transistor counts and process nodes compare?

A: The GTX 1070 uses a 16 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, while the Tesla C2075 uses a 40 nm process with 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die. The GTX 1070 packs more than twice the transistors into a smaller physical area.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1070 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 256.3 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the GTX 1070 achieves significantly higher memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput in FP32?

A: The GTX 1070 delivers 6.463 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Tesla C2075 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). The GTX 1070 is about 6.3 times faster in raw FP32 compute.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a 247 W TDP and requires a 550 W power supply, while the GTX 1070 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W power supply. The GTX 1070 delivers far more performance while consuming 97 W less power.

Q: Do both cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 1070 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Architecture Differences

The Tesla C2075 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture using the GF110 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 1070 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP104 chip, built on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink is fundamental to the performance gap. The Fermi chip contains 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.8M per mm². The Pascal chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a much smaller 314 mm² die, achieving a density of 22.9M per mm² — nearly four times higher.

The shader configuration differs dramatically. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 1070 has 1,920 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This means the GTX 1070 has more than four times the shading units and more than double the TMUs. The pixel rate also tells the story: 16.07 GPixel/s for the C2075 versus 107.7 GPixel/s for the GTX 1070. Texture rate is 32.14 GTexel/s versus 202.0 GTexel/s.

The memory architectures differ in bus width, with the C2075 using a 384-bit interface and the GTX 1070 using a 256-bit interface. However, the GTX 1070's memory runs at 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) on the C2075. This yields 256.3 GB/s versus 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1070 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the C2075 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

The GTX 1070 includes modern display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The C2075 has only 1x DVI, reflecting its compute-focused design. The GTX 1070 also lists FP16 performance at 101.0 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature absent from the C2075's specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1070 wins in every measurable performance category. The OpenCL score of 44,700 versus 10,400 represents a 76.7% lead. In FP32 compute, the GTX 1070's 6.463 TFLOPS dwarfs the C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. Pixel rate, texture rate, memory bandwidth — the GTX 1070 leads in all of them.

The Tesla C2075's wins are more circumstantial. Its 384-bit memory bus provides a wider interface, though lower effective speed. It also has a smaller physical footprint at 248 mm length versus 267 mm for the GTX 1070. The C2075's 6 GB memory capacity is closer to the GTX 1070's 8 GB than other specs might suggest, though still smaller.

For compute workloads, the GTX 1070's massive shader count and higher clock speeds make it the clear choice. The C2075's Fermi architecture was designed for early GPGPU compute, but the Pascal architecture's efficiency and raw throughput surpass it. The GTX 1070 also supports Vulkan, which the C2075 does not, making it more versatile for modern applications.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Tesla C2075 | GTX 1070 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.8M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | — | 1506 MHz |

| Boost Clock | — | 1683 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps) | 2002 MHz (8 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 256.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 448 | 1920 |

| TMUs | 56 | 120 |

| ROPs | 48 | 64 |

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

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

| FP32 | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 6.463 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | — | 101.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 247 W | 150 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

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

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

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

| Vulkan | — | 1.4 |

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

| Length | 248 mm | 267 mm |

| Height | — | 112 mm |

| Width | — | 40 mm |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. The Tesla C2075 scores 10,400, while the GTX 1070 scores 44,700. This is a delta of 76.7% in favor of the GTX 1070. The GTX 1070 is not just faster — it is in a completely different performance class.

To contextualize the C2075's score, its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarks include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10,362 (0.4% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481 (0.8% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A at 10,273 (1.2% slower). The C2075 sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 1070, meanwhile, has rivals like the AMD FirePro W5000 at 9,803 (0.2% faster), the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M at 9,832 (0.5% faster), and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 at 9,724 (0.6% slower). Its percentile is 47.

The GTX 1070 also has additional benchmark data that the C2075 lacks. It scores 13,498 in Passmark G3D, 6,102 in Passmark GPU Compute, 18,801 in Geekbench Metal, and 22,121 in Geekbench Vulkan. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test shows 1,082. These scores reinforce its dominance across DirectX, Metal, and Vulkan workloads. The C2075 has no comparable data for these tests, limiting direct comparison but also highlighting the GTX 1070's broader test coverage.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is the superior card in every measurable way. Its OpenCL performance is 76.7% higher, its FP32 compute is over six times higher, and it achieves this while consuming 97 W less power. The GTX 1070 has more memory, higher bandwidth, more shading units, and support for modern APIs like Vulkan. It also carries a launch MSRP of 379 USD.

The Tesla C2075's only advantages are its smaller physical length (248 mm versus 267 mm) and its wider 384-bit memory bus. These are not enough to compensate for the massive performance deficit. The C2075's Fermi architecture is from a different era, and its 40 nm process cannot compete with the 16 nm Pascal design.

For compute workloads, the GTX 1070 is the clear choice. Its 1,920 shading units and 6.463 TFLOPS FP32 throughput make it suitable for general-purpose GPU computing. The C2075's 448 shading units and 1,027.7 GFLOPS place it in a much lower performance tier. The GTX 1070 also has better memory bandwidth at 256.3 GB/s versus 150.3 GB/s, which matters for memory-bound compute tasks.

For gaming, the GTX 1070 is obviously the pick, with its DirectX 12 (12_1) support, Vulkan 1.4, and multiple display outputs. The C2075's single DVI output and lack of Vulkan make it unsuitable for modern gaming. Its DirectX 12 (11_0) support is also behind the GTX 1070's 12_1.

The GTX 1070's 47th percentile ranking versus the C2075's 48th percentile might suggest parity, but this is misleading. The C2075's average benchmark score is 10,400, while the GTX 1070's is 9,780. This discrepancy exists because the GTX 1070's average includes multiple tests that penalize its raw score. In the only shared test, the GTX 1070 wins by a wide margin.

Users should pick the GTX 1070 for essentially any purpose. It is faster, more efficient, supports more APIs, and has better memory characteristics. The Tesla C2075 might interest collectors or those needing its specific 384-bit bus interface, but the GTX 1070 is the rational choice based on benchmark data. The GTX 1070 represents a generational leap that the C2075 cannot match.