NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 are both Fermi 2.0-era parts, but they target very different corners of the GPU market. One is a consumer gaming card from the GeForce 500 generation, while the other is a compute-oriented Tesla product from the x20xx series. The benchmark data shows a single OpenCL test, where the GTX 560 Ti edges out the Tesla C2075 by 2.8%. This slim margin, however, masks significant architectural and specification differences that point to distinct use cases for each card.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available benchmark data, the GTX 560 Ti is the clear winner in raw compute performance. It scores 10,690 in Geekbench OpenCL, against the Tesla C2075's 10,400. This 2.8% advantage places the GTX 560 Ti in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla C2075 sits just below at the 48th percentile. The GTX 560 Ti also has a higher peak FP32 throughput at 1,263.4 GFLOPS, compared to the Tesla's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. For any workload that relies purely on shader compute, the data suggests the GTX 560 Ti is the more capable part.

However, the Tesla C2075's strengths are not in the benchmark results but in its memory subsystem and board design. It ships with 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 384-bit bus, and 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 560 Ti, in contrast, has only 1 GB of memory, a 256-bit bus, and 128.3 GB/s of bandwidth. For datasets that exceed 1 GB, the Tesla C2075 is the only viable option; the GTX 560 Ti would run out of memory entirely. The Tesla also has a higher pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s vs 13.17 GPixel/s) and more ROPs (48 vs 32), which could benefit certain fill-rate-bound tasks. In essence, the GTX 560 Ti wins on raw compute speed, while the Tesla C2075 wins on capacity and memory bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture and use a 40 nm process at TSMC, but they are fundamentally different chips. The GTX 560 Ti uses the GF114 chip, which is a smaller, more power-efficient design. It packs 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.9M / mm². The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip, a much larger and more complex design. It houses 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 5.8M / mm². The GF110 is essentially a full-fat Fermi chip, while the GF114 is a cut-down version.

The shading unit counts reflect this difference. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, while the GTX 560 Ti has 384. However, the GTX 560 Ti compensates with a higher memory clock (1002 MHz vs 783 MHz) and more TMUs (64 vs 56). The GTX 560 Ti's texture rate is significantly higher at 52.67 GTexel/s, compared to the Tesla's 32.14 GTexel/s. This suggests the GTX 560 Ti is better optimized for texture-heavy graphics workloads, despite having fewer shaders. The Tesla C2075, with its larger chip and more ROPs, seems oriented toward compute and pixel-heavy tasks.

The board designs also diverge. The GTX 560 Ti is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm (9 inches) with 2x 6-pin power connectors and a suggested 450 W PSU. The Tesla C2075 is also dual-slot but longer at 248 mm (9.8 inches), requiring a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin configuration and a 550 W PSU. The GTX 560 Ti has a TDP of 170 W, while the Tesla C2075 draws 247 W. The GTX 560 Ti also has more display outputs (2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI), while the Tesla C2075 has only a single DVI output, reinforcing its compute-focused role.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti scores 10,690, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. The GTX 560 Ti wins by 2.8%. This is a relatively narrow margin, but it places the GTX 560 Ti slightly ahead of its rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, which scores 10,629 (a 0.6% difference). The Tesla C2075, meanwhile, is just ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, which scores 10,362 (a 0.4% difference).

The data shows that the GTX 560 Ti's advantage is not overwhelming. Its 2.8% lead over the Tesla C2075 is smaller than the 1.1% gap between the GTX 560 Ti and the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (which scores 10,804). This suggests that in the grand scheme of GPU performance, these two cards are very close in raw compute. The GTX 560 Ti's higher FP32 rate (1,263.4 GFLOPS vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS) suggests it should be faster in theory, but the Tesla's larger memory bus and higher pixel rate might help it in certain memory-bound scenarios. The benchmark results indicate a slight edge for the GTX 560 Ti, but the data does not support a dramatic difference in compute capability.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti scores 10,690, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. The GTX 560 Ti wins by 2.8%.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 have more memory bandwidth than the GTX 560 Ti?

A: Yes. The Tesla C2075 has a 384-bit memory bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 560 Ti has a 256-bit bus with 128.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units, and does that translate to a higher FP32 rate?

A: The Tesla C2075 has more shading units (448) than the GTX 560 Ti (384). However, the GTX 560 Ti has a higher FP32 throughput at 1,263.4 GFLOPS, compared to the Tesla's 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Fermi 2.0 architecture and are manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. However, they use different chips: the GTX 560 Ti uses GF114, while the Tesla C2075 uses GF110.

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

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 560 Ti has 1 GB. This is a significant difference for large datasets.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s, which is higher than the GTX 560 Ti's 13.17 GPixel/s. The Tesla also has more ROPs (48 vs 32).

The Verdict

From the data, the GTX 560 Ti is the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute speed. Its 2.8% lead in OpenCL, higher FP32 rate, and faster texture rate (52.67 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s) make it the stronger performer in shader-heavy workloads. Its lower TDP (170 W vs 247 W) and smaller footprint (229 mm vs 248 mm) also make it easier to integrate into a standard system. The GTX 560 Ti also has more display outputs, making it a more flexible card for general use.

The Tesla C2075 is the better choice for workloads that demand large memory capacity. Its 6 GB of VRAM is a six-fold increase over the GTX 560 Ti's 1 GB, and its 150.3 GB/s bandwidth is 17% higher. This makes it the only option for datasets that cannot fit into 1 GB. Its higher pixel rate and ROP count could also benefit rendering tasks that are fill-rate limited. However, its higher power draw and single display output make it less suited for typical consumer use.

The data suggests a clear split: if you need speed, pick the GTX 560 Ti; if you need capacity, pick the Tesla C2075. The benchmark results do not show the Tesla as a faster card, but its memory configuration is a different class entirely.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 |

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

| Chip | GF114 | GF110 |

| Generation | GeForce 500 | Tesla Fermi (x20xx) |

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

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 520 mm² |

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

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

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.3 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 448 |

| TMUs | 64 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 13.17 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.67 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,263.4 GFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 170 W | 247 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 550 W |

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

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

| Release Date | 2011-01-24 | 2011-07-24 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 400 | Tesla |

| Successor | GeForce 600 | Tesla Kepler |

| Launch MSRP | 249 USD | N/A |