NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database for this pairing is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10400 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 8743 points. This gives the Tesla C2075 a 19% advantage, a significant margin in compute-focused workloads. The Tesla C2075 claims the sole head-to-head win, with 1 win against 0 for the GTX 460 v2.

To contextualize these numbers, the Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10362 points (0.4% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10481 points (0.8% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A at 10273 points (1.2% lower). The GTX 460 v2, by contrast, lands at the 44th percentile. Its closest competitors are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8746 points (essentially tied, 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 at 8686 points (0.7% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M265X at 8851 points (1.2% higher). The delta between these two cards, 19%, is far larger than the differences seen among their respective nearest rival clusters, indicating a real performance tier gap rather than a marginal statistical fluctuation.

The OpenCL score reflects general-purpose compute throughput, which is the Tesla's home turf. The GTX 460 v2, while a capable performer in its own right, trails by nearly one-fifth in this metric. That is not a small gap; it is the difference between a card designed for professional simulation and rendering versus one aimed at consumer gaming. The data shows a clear hierarchy: the Tesla C2075 is the stronger compute part, and the GTX 460 v2 is the more modest offering.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the Fermi 2.0 architecture and both are built by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The similarities end there in terms of silicon scale. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip, which packs 3,000 million transistors on a die size of 520 mm². The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip, with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical, 5.8 million per mm² for the Tesla and 5.9 million per mm² for the GTX 460 v2, which makes sense given the same process node. The Tesla's advantage comes from sheer physical size: 55% more transistors and a 57% larger die. This is a classic example of a professional-grade chip using a fuller implementation of the architecture.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Tesla C2075 carries 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with 96.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla offers 56% more bandwidth and six times the memory capacity. The memory clock also differs: the Tesla runs at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), while the GTX 460 v2 runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Interestingly, the GTX 460 v2 has the faster memory clock, but the narrower bus and smaller capacity undermine any bandwidth advantage.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 460 v2 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Tesla has 33% more shading units and double the ROP count. The TMU count is identical at 56. Pixel rate favors the Tesla at 16.07 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s for the GTX 460 v2. Texture rate flips in favor of the GTX 460 v2, however: 43.62 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s for the Tesla. This is a notable reversal, suggesting the GTX 460 v2's higher memory clock allows its texture units to work faster, even with fewer shading units behind them.

FP32 performance is nearly identical: 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Tesla and 1,046.3 GFLOPS for the GTX 460 v2. The GTX 460 v2 actually edges out the Tesla by 1.8% in raw floating-point throughput. This makes the 19% OpenCL gap more intriguing, as the difference must come from memory bandwidth, cache behavior, or driver optimization rather than raw compute capability. Neither card supports FP16, and both share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support.

Power and physical dimensions also differ. The Tesla C2075 has a 247 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 550 W, while the GTX 460 v2 draws 160 W with a 450 W suggested PSU. The Tesla is longer at 248 mm (9.8 inches) versus 210 mm (8.3 inches) for the GTX 460 v2. Both are dual-slot cards. The Tesla uses a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector arrangement, while the GTX 460 v2 uses 2x 6-pin. Display outputs differ as well: the Tesla offers only 1x DVI, while the GTX 460 v2 provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla C2075 wins decisively in the OpenCL benchmark, but the reasons are architectural. Its 6 GB memory capacity and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for datasets that would exhaust the GTX 460 v2's 1 GB frame buffer. In compute workloads that stress memory capacity, such as large matrix operations or scientific simulations, the Tesla's 384-bit bus and larger pool of VRAM provide a clear advantage. The higher ROP count of 48 versus 24 also helps with pixel-heavy compute tasks. The Tesla's 48th percentile ranking, while not stellar, is still above the GTX 460 v2's 44th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within a 1.7% band, suggesting consistent performance around the 10400 score.

The GTX 460 v2 wins in texture throughput, with 43.62 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s for the Tesla. This is a 36% advantage in texture fill rate. For workloads that are texture-bound, such as certain gaming scenarios or texture filtering tests, the GTX 460 v2 is the faster card. Its higher memory clock (1002 MHz versus 783 MHz) also gives it a per-clock memory speed advantage, even if the total bandwidth is lower. The GTX 460 v2 also has a slight edge in FP32 compute at 1,046.3 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The lower TDP of 160 W versus 247 W makes it easier to integrate into a wider range of systems, and its dual DVI plus mini-HDMI outputs offer more display flexibility.

The use-case split is clear. For compute-heavy, memory-intensive professional workloads, the Tesla C2075 is the stronger choice. For texture-bound tasks and scenarios where raw FP32 throughput matters more than memory capacity, the GTX 460 v2 holds its own. The GTX 460 v2's 1024 MB memory is a limiting factor for modern workloads, but its faster texture rate and slightly higher FP32 peak are measurable advantages in the right context.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10400 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 8743. The Tesla leads by 19%.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 96.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla offers six times the capacity and 56% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, while the GTX 460 v2 has 336. The Tesla has 33% more units. The ROP count is also higher on the Tesla: 48 versus 24.

Q: Is the GTX 460 v2 faster in any compute metric?

A: Yes, the GTX 460 v2 has a higher texture rate at 43.62 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s for the Tesla. It also has slightly higher FP32 performance at 1,046.3 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a 247 W TDP and a suggested 550 W power supply. The GTX 460 v2 has a 160 W TDP and a suggested 450 W power supply. The Tesla also requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector, while the GTX 460 v2 uses 2x 6-pin.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Neither supports Vulkan. Both are built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture and use the 40 nm process.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in purpose. The Tesla C2075 is the compute specialist. Its 19% OpenCL lead, 6 GB memory capacity, and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth make it the obvious choice for professional workloads that need large memory pools and sustained throughput. The 48th percentile ranking, while modest, places it above the GTX 460 v2's 44th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within a narrow 1.7% band, indicating consistent performance. The 247 W TDP and single DVI output are acceptable trade-offs for a card aimed at servers and workstations.

The GTX 460 v2 is the more balanced consumer card. Its 160 W TDP, dual DVI and mini-HDMI outputs, and lower power requirements make it easier to deploy in a standard desktop. The 43.62 GTexel/s texture rate and 1,046.3 GFLOPS FP32 performance are genuine strengths, and the card's nearest rivals include the RTX 3050 A Mobile at a 0% delta, showing it is competitive with much newer hardware in this specific benchmark. The 1024 MB memory is the limiting factor, but for its intended market, it was sufficient.

Who should pick which? Anyone running large-scale compute tasks, simulations, or memory-hungry applications should choose the Tesla C2075. Its 6 GB frame buffer and 384-bit bus are non-negotiable advantages for such work. Gamers or users with texture-heavy workloads who prioritize lower power draw and faster texture fill should consider the GTX 460 v2. The benchmark data does not support the Tesla for texture-bound tasks, nor does it support the GTX 460 v2 for memory-bound compute. The choice is not about which is "better" in an absolute sense, but which matches the workload.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 |

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

| Chip | GF110 | GF114 |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.8M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 96.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 448 | 336 |

| ROPs | 48 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 10.91 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 43.62 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 1,046.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 247 W | 160 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Length | 248 mm (9.8 inches) | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Generation | Tesla Fermi (x20xx) | GeForce 400 |

| Release Date | 2011-07-24 | 2011-09-23 |

| Predecessor | Tesla | GeForce 200 |

| Successor | Tesla Kepler | GeForce 500 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 199 USD |