NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the Tesla C2075 scored 10400, while the GTX 465 scored 9294. The delta is 11.9%, making the Tesla C2075 the winner in this head-to-head matchup. This is the only benchmark where both cards have recorded scores, so the overall win count stands at 1 for the Tesla C2075 and 0 for the GTX 465.

The 11.9% lead is meaningful but not overwhelming. For context, the Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 465 sits at the 46th percentile. The two cards occupy adjacent performance tiers, with the Tesla C2075 holding a clear but modest advantage in raw OpenCL compute throughput. The GTX 465's closest rival in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M, which scores 9302, a delta of -0.1% relative to the GTX 465. This means the GTX 465 is essentially tied with that mobile part in OpenCL performance. Meanwhile, the Tesla C2075's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10362, a delta of 0.4%, indicating the Tesla C2075 is nearly identical to that mobile GPU in this workload.

Looking at the broader rival sets, the Tesla C2075 also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10273, delta 1.2%) and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10582, delta -1.7%). The GTX 465 trails the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9313, delta -0.2%) and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9221, delta 0.8%) by narrow margins. These numbers suggest both cards are competitive with mid-range parts from their respective eras, but the Tesla C2075 has a slightly higher ceiling in compute-heavy applications.

The single benchmark result translates directly to the win count. There is no multi-core versus single-core split, no gaming versus compute split, and no rasterization versus ray tracing comparison. The database records only one metric, and that metric favors the Tesla C2075. For anyone comparing these two cards, the OpenCL score is the sole quantitative basis for differentiation in this database.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins in the only measured category: OpenCL compute performance. Its score of 10400 surpasses the GTX 465's 9294 by 11.9%. This makes the Tesla C2075 the preferred choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL acceleration, such as general-purpose GPU computing, scientific simulations, or data-parallel tasks. The card's higher shading unit count, 448 versus 352, and its larger memory pool of 6 GB versus 1024 MB, support this advantage in compute-heavy scenarios.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 does not win any recorded benchmark in this head-to-head comparison. Its wins count is 0. However, the data does not indicate that the GTX 465 is a poor performer; it simply shows that it trails the Tesla C2075 in OpenCL. The GTX 465's score of 9294 places it in the same performance neighborhood as several other GPUs in the database, including the GTX 850M and R7 M380, with deltas of -0.1% and -0.2% respectively. This suggests the GTX 465 is a capable OpenCL performer, but not at the level of the Tesla C2075.

For users who prioritize compute throughput, the Tesla C2075 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For users who prioritize other aspects, such as display outputs or power consumption, the GTX 465 offers advantages that the benchmark does not capture. The GTX 465 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs, while the Tesla C2075 has only 1x DVI. The GTX 465 also has a lower TDP of 200 W versus 247 W for the Tesla C2075. These differences are not reflected in the OpenCL score, but they matter for real-world deployment. In terms of raw compute, the Tesla C2075 wins; in terms of physical footprint and connectivity, the GTX 465 may be more practical for certain setups.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10400, which is 11.9% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465's score of 9294.

Q: How does the Tesla C2075 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Tesla C2075 is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10362) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10273). It trails the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10481) by 0.8% and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10582) by 1.7%.

Q: How does the GTX 465 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 465 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9302, delta -0.1%) and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9313, delta -0.2%). It is slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9273, delta 0.2%) and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9221, delta 0.8%).

Q: What is the memory size difference between the two cards?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 465 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, while the GTX 465 has 352 shading units.

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

A: The Tesla C2075 requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, while the GTX 465 requires 2x 6-pin power connectors. Both cards have a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip, while the GTX 465 uses the GF100 chip. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs; the GTX 465 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This is a substantial difference in execution resources, with the Tesla C2075 offering 27% more shading units, 27% more TMUs, and 50% more ROPs.

Memory configuration also differs significantly. The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 465 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 102.7 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is slightly higher on the GTX 465 at 802 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) versus 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) on the Tesla C2075, but the wider bus on the Tesla C2075 gives it a 46% bandwidth advantage.

Compute rates follow the resource counts. The Tesla C2075 achieves 16.07 GPixel/s pixel rate and 32.14 GTexel/s texture rate, while the GTX 465 achieves 13.38 GPixel/s and 26.75 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Tesla C2075 versus 855.4 GFLOPS for the GTX 465, a 20% difference in favor of the Tesla C2075.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W, while the GTX 465 has a TDP of 200 W. The Tesla C2075 uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, whereas the GTX 465 uses 2x 6-pin. Both are dual-slot cards with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The Tesla C2075 is 248 mm (9.8 inches) long, and the GTX 465 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long. Display outputs differ: the Tesla C2075 has 1x DVI, while the GTX 465 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.

The release dates differ by about 14 months. The GTX 465 was released on 2010-05-30, and the Tesla C2075 was released on 2011-07-24. The GTX 465 has a launch MSRP of 279 USD, which can be stated once as a reference point. The Tesla C2075 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The Tesla C2075 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, while the GTX 465 uses the original Fermi architecture. Both are manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, but the chips differ in size and transistor count. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip with 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.8M per mm². The GTX 465 uses the GF100 chip with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a density of 5.9M per mm². The GF100 is slightly larger and denser, but the GF110 implementation in the Tesla C2075 delivers higher performance in the recorded benchmark.

The generation labels differ. The Tesla C2075 belongs to the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation, while the GTX 465 belongs to the GeForce 400 generation. The Tesla C2075's predecessor is listed as Tesla, and its successor is Tesla Kepler. The GTX 465's predecessor is GeForce 200, and its successor is GeForce 500. This places the two cards in different product lines despite sharing a common architectural foundation.

Both cards support the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both use a PCIe 2.0 x16 bus interface. The Tesla C2075 has more shading units and ROPs, which directly contributes to its higher pixel rate and texture rate. The GTX 465 has slightly higher memory clock speed, but the Tesla C2075's wider memory bus and larger frame buffer make it the more capable compute card.

The architecture differences manifest most clearly in the compute resource allocation. The Fermi 2.0 architecture in the Tesla C2075, with its GF110 chip, provides a more fully enabled configuration compared to the GF100 in the GTX 465. The transistor counts are nearly identical, but the Tesla C2075 allocates more of those transistors to shading units and ROPs, resulting in higher throughput across all measured compute metrics. The GTX 465, with fewer active units, delivers lower performance but also consumes less power (200 W versus 247 W). These architectural choices reflect the different design goals: the Tesla C2075 prioritizes compute throughput for professional workloads, while the GTX 465 balances performance with power efficiency for consumer graphics.