NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 in different eras of GPU design, and benchmark results are unequivocal about the outcome. The GTX 1650 SUPER dominates the Tesla C2075 in the single available head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a massive 321.9%. This decisive victory, combined with the GTX 1650 SUPER's superior architecture and feature set, makes it the clear choice for any modern workload. The Tesla C2075, while offering more memory and a wider bus, is a legacy compute product whose performance is firmly rooted in 2011.

The Verdict — who should pick which, strictly from the data

The verdict is not close. For any user considering a GPU for general-purpose compute, modern gaming, or any workload leveraging current APIs, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the only rational selection. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark with a delta of 321.9% over the Tesla C2075. Its average benchmark score of 11047 places it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla C2075's average score of 10400 places it in the 48th percentile. The GTX 1650 SUPER also offers a modern feature set, including support for Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), which the Tesla C2075 lacks entirely (no Vulkan support, and only DirectX 12 (11_0)).

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is for a narrow, specific use case: legacy compute applications that require large memory capacity. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus is a distinct advantage over the GTX 1650 SUPER's 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. However, this advantage is offset by its significantly lower bandwidth (150.3 GB/s vs 192.0 GB/s) and its massive power draw of 247 W compared to the GTX 1650 SUPER's 100 W. For anyone not locked into that specific legacy compute scenario, the data shows no compelling reason to choose the Tesla C2075.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures, representing a generational leap. The GTX 1650 SUPER is based on the Turing architecture, utilizing the TU116 chip built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This chip packs 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 23.2M / mm². In contrast, the Tesla C2075 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture, built on the GF110 chip using a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This older chip contains 3,000 million transistors on a much larger 520 mm² die, resulting in a significantly lower transistor density of just 5.8M / mm². This density difference alone explains much of the performance gap.

The compute capabilities are starkly different. The GTX 1650 SUPER features 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Tesla C2075 has only 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 1650 SUPER's peak FP32 performance is 4.416 TFLOPS, compared to the Tesla C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). The GTX 1650 SUPER also supports FP16 compute at 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature entirely absent on the Tesla C2075. These architectural differences manifest in the pixel and texture rates: the GTX 1650 SUPER achieves 55.20 GPixel/s and 138.0 GTexel/s, while the Tesla C2075 manages only 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is only one direct comparison in the data, and it is a landslide. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875 points, while the Tesla C2075 scores 10400. This yields a delta of 321.9% in favor of the GTX 1650 SUPER. This is not a marginal win; it is a performance multiple of over four times, confirming that the Turing architecture's shader efficiency and clock speeds completely overwhelm the older Fermi design in a compute-heavy workload.

This single benchmark result is reinforced by the broader benchmark suites available for the GTX 1650 SUPER. Its Passmark G3D score is 10179, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 4477. While the Tesla C2075 lacks comparable scores in these tests, its OpenCL score of 10400 suggests it would be far behind. The GTX 1650 SUPER also shows versatility, with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 50519 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12) score of 352, indicating it can handle modern graphics APIs. The Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan support and limited DirectX 12 capabilities, so it cannot even participate in these modern tests.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a clear evolution in GPU design priorities. The most obvious difference is in memory configuration. The Tesla C2075 offers a larger capacity of 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, but at a lower effective speed of 3.1 Gbps and a bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s. The GTX 1650 SUPER counters with 4 GB of faster GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but achieves a higher bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s thanks to its 12 Gbps effective memory clock. The GTX 1650 SUPER's smaller memory pool is a trade-off, but the higher bandwidth is more beneficial for most workloads.

Power and physical requirements are also major differentiators. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W and requires a 300 W power supply with a single 6-pin connector. The Tesla C2075 is a power-hungry card with a 247 W TDP, needing a 550 W power supply and both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. Both cards are dual-slot, but the GTX 1650 SUPER is shorter at 229 mm (9 inches) compared to the Tesla C2075's 248 mm (9.8 inches).

Connectivity and API support are where the GTX 1650 SUPER is unequivocally modern. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Tesla C2075 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and has only a single 1x DVI output, making it unsuitable for modern multi-monitor setups. In terms of software, the GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla C2075 supports only DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is overwhelmingly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 43875 against the Tesla C2075's 10400, a delta of 321.9% in favor of the GTX 1650 SUPER.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 have any advantages over the GTX 1650 SUPER?

A: Yes, it has a larger memory capacity of 6 GB compared to 4 GB on the GTX 1650 SUPER. It also has a wider 384-bit memory bus, though its overall bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s is lower than the GTX 1650 SUPER's 192.0 GB/s.

Q: Can the Tesla C2075 run modern games with DirectX 12?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a DirectX 12 (11_0) feature level, which is an older version of the API. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports the more modern DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level, making it the better choice for current gaming titles.

Q: What are the power supply requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W and requires a 300 W power supply with a single 6-pin connector. The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and requires a 550 W power supply with a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector.

Q: Is the Tesla C2075 a good choice for a modern workstation?

A: The data suggests no. Its average benchmark score of 10400 places it in the 48th percentile, and it lacks critical modern features like Vulkan support. Its high power draw and single DVI output also make it impractical for modern use cases.

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a percentile ranking of 50, while the Tesla C2075 has a percentile ranking of 48. This indicates the GTX 1650 SUPER performs better than a slightly larger portion of all GPUs in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins in nearly every measurable category. It secures the only direct benchmark win, dominating the OpenCL test. It is the clear winner for gaming, thanks to its support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which are essential for modern titles. It is also the superior choice for any compute task that can leverage its 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 power or its 8.832 TFLOPS of FP16 capability. Its lower TDP of 100 W makes it suitable for systems with smaller power supplies, and its modern display outputs (HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a) allow for flexible monitor connectivity. The data shows it is the more capable and versatile GPU.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins in a single, specific area: memory capacity. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory is 50% larger than the GTX 1650 SUPER's 4 GB. This could be a deciding factor for a niche set of legacy compute applications that require more than 4 GB of memory but do not benefit from the GTX 1650 SUPER's higher bandwidth or shader performance. However, this is a narrow advantage. Its 247 W TDP, lack of modern API support, and significantly lower compute performance (1,027.7 GFLOPS vs 4.416 TFLOPS) mean that any workload fitting in the GTX 1650 SUPER's memory will be dramatically faster on the newer card. The Tesla C2075 is a relic that only makes sense for the most specific and constrained of legacy tasks.