NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains only one common benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 points against the Tesla C2070's 9,716 points. That translates to a 351.6% advantage for the newer card, a decisive margin that effectively defines the competitive relationship between these two very different products.

The GTX 1650 SUPER's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 11,047, while the Tesla C2070's average is 9,716. This places the GTX 1650 SUPER at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, whereas the Tesla C2070 sits at the 47th percentile. The percentile gap is modest despite the large OpenCL delta, which indicates that the Tesla C2070's single recorded score is generally competitive with other older workstation parts, while the GTX 1650 SUPER's broader benchmark suite includes both strong and weak results across various DX9, DX11, and compute workloads.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The GTX 1650 SUPER's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 550 with an average score of 11,075, a difference of only 0.2%. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q both score 11,088, putting them 0.4% ahead, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 trails by 1.5% with 10,883. For the Tesla C2070, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla M10 at 9,724 (0.1% ahead), followed by the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (0.5% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653 (0.7% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780 (0.7% ahead). These tight margins suggest that both cards sit in crowded performance neighborhoods, but the GTX 1650 SUPER's absolute scores are roughly 13.7% higher than the Tesla C2070's average.

The single head-to-head result is unambiguous: the GTX 1650 SUPER wins the only common workload by a factor of roughly 4.5. No benchmark in the database shows the Tesla C2070 ahead, and the wins tally reflects that with 1 win for the GTX 1650 SUPER and 0 for the Tesla C2070. The OpenCL test is particularly relevant for compute-oriented tasks, and the 351.6% delta indicates that the GTX 1650 SUPER's architecture handles this workload far more efficiently than the Fermi-based Tesla.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras entirely. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses the TU116 chip built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, featuring 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The Tesla C2070 uses the GF100 chip on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC, with 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, giving a density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. The GTX 1650 SUPER's smaller, denser design reflects nearly a decade of process improvement.

The GTX 1650 SUPER belongs to the Turing architecture, part of the GeForce 16 generation, while the Tesla C2070 is a Fermi architecture part from the Tesla Fermi generation (x20xx). The GTX 1650 SUPER's predecessor is the GeForce 10 series and its successor is the GeForce 20 series, whereas the Tesla C2070's predecessor is the Tesla line and its successor is Tesla Kepler. The release dates are also starkly different: the GTX 1650 SUPER launched on 2019-11-21, while the Tesla C2070 launched on 2011-07-24.

Memory subsystems differ substantially. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s and a memory clock of 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The Tesla C2070 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, but its bandwidth is lower at 143.4 GB/s, with a memory clock of 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). Despite having less memory, the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 33.5% more bandwidth thanks to the faster GDDR6 technology.

Compute resources differ significantly. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 1650 SUPER's pixel rate is 55.20 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s for the Tesla, and its texture rate is 138.0 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. In FP32, the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS, while the Tesla C2070 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). The GTX 1650 SUPER also supports FP16 at 8.832 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Tesla C2070 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and interface differences are substantial. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W with a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W, requiring both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Tesla C2070 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 1650 SUPER offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Tesla C2070 offers only 1x DVI.

API support shows the generational gap. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla C2070 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no recorded Vulkan support. Both cards are end-of-life in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11,047, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 has an average of 9,716. The GTX 1650 SUPER is therefore about 13.7% higher in overall recorded performance.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the only shared benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 versus the Tesla C2070's 9,716, a delta of 351.6% in favor of the GTX 1650 SUPER.

Q: Which card has more memory and which has more bandwidth?

A: The Tesla C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of GDDR6. However, the GTX 1650 SUPER has higher bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s versus 143.4 GB/s for the Tesla C2070.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W, using a single 6-pin connector. The Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W, requiring both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: No. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla C2070 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded in the database.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER ranks at the 50th percentile, while the Tesla C2070 ranks at the 47th percentile. The difference is small, reflecting the Tesla's relatively strong standing among older workstation parts.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | NVIDIA Tesla C2070 |

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

| Chip | TU116 | GF100 |

| Architecture | Turing | Fermi |

| Generation | GeForce 16 | Tesla Fermi (x20xx) |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 284 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.2M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 448 |

| TMUs | 80 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 55.20 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 138.0 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.416 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 100 W | 238 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 550 W |

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

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | null |

| Length | 229 mm (9 inches) | 248 mm (9.8 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | null |

| Width | 35 mm (1.4 inches) | null |

| Release Date | 2019-11-21 | 2011-07-24 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 10 | Tesla |

| Successor | GeForce 20 | Tesla Kepler |

| Launch MSRP | 159 USD | null |

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in every measured dimension that matters for modern workloads. Its 351.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the headline number, but the architecture story is equally decisive: a 12 nm Turing chip with 4.416 TFLOPS FP32, 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 fundamentally outclasses a 40 nm Fermi chip with 1,027.7 GFLOPS and no Vulkan support.

The Tesla C2070's only advantages are raw memory capacity (6 GB versus 4 GB) and ROP count (48 versus 32), but its lower bandwidth and far weaker compute throughput negate those benefits in practice. The single recorded benchmark shows no scenario where the Tesla C2070 wins, and its nearest rivals (Tesla M10, Quadro P4000, Radeon Pro WX 2100) are all within 0.7% of its score, indicating it performs at a level comparable to mid-range workstation cards from several generations later.

For anyone choosing between these two today, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the rational pick for gaming, general compute, and any workload that benefits from modern API support. The Tesla C2070, with its 238 W TDP, dual power connectors, and 550 W suggested PSU, demands significantly more power infrastructure while delivering less than a third of the FP32 throughput. The GTX 1650 SUPER's 100 W TDP and single 6-pin connector make it far more practical for standard desktop builds.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins in essentially every performance category recorded in the database. Its 4.416 TFLOPS FP32 output is over four times the Tesla C2070's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 55.20 GPixel/s more than triples the Tesla's 16.07 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 138.0 GTexel/s is over four times the Tesla's 32.14 GTexel/s. The memory bandwidth advantage (192.0 GB/s versus 143.4 GB/s) further solidifies its position for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

The Tesla C2070 retains a narrow edge in memory capacity (6 GB versus 4 GB) and ROP throughput (48 ROPs versus 32), which could matter for specific framebuffer-heavy tasks, though its lower pixel rate suggests limited practical benefit. Its 384-bit memory bus is wider, but the slower GDDR5 clock means the GTX 1650 SUPER still achieves higher effective bandwidth.

For compute-oriented users, the GTX 1650 SUPER's FP16 support (8.832 TFLOPS) is a major differentiator, as the Tesla C2070 has no recorded FP16 capability. For gamers, the GTX 1650 SUPER's modern display outputs (HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.4a) versus the Tesla's single DVI make it the only practical choice for contemporary monitors. The GTX 1650 SUPER also consumes 138 W less power, requires a 250 W smaller suggested PSU, and uses a newer PCIe 3.0 interface, all of which point to it being the better fit for any current system.