NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 both belong to the Fermi 2.0 architecture generation, yet they occupy opposite ends of NVIDIA’s product spectrum from 2011. The Tesla C2075 targets compute workloads with 6 GB of memory and a massive GF110 die, while the GTX 560 is a mainstream graphics card built around the smaller GF114 chip. The database contains one shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, which provides a direct comparison point, along with detailed specifications that reveal how each card allocates its resources.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 points, while the GTX 560 scores 9,058 points. This gives the Tesla C2075 a win by 14.8%. The margin is significant, and it stems from the Tesla’s larger compute configuration. The Tesla C2075 carries 448 shading units, whereas the GTX 560 has 336. That is 112 additional shading units for the Tesla, a 33% difference in raw shader count. However, the GTX 560 counters with a higher raw FP32 throughput of 1,088.6 GFLOPS compared to the Tesla’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS. So the GTX 560 actually computes more floating-point operations per second at peak, yet it still loses the OpenCL test by 14.8%. This suggests that memory capacity, bandwidth, or better sustained execution on the Tesla’s larger memory subsystem outweighs the GTX 560’s higher peak compute rate.

The Tesla C2075’s nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow band. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 10,362, just 0.4% below the Tesla. The AMD Radeon RX 550X scores 10,481, which is 0.8% above the Tesla. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273, 1.2% below, and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X scores 10,582, 1.7% above. These are all mobile or low-power desktop parts, yet they cluster tightly around the Tesla’s score. The Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, meaning roughly half of all recorded GPUs score lower and half score higher. For a 2011 compute card with 6 GB of memory, this is a solid mid-pack position.

The GTX 560’s nearest rivals also cluster closely. The NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition scores 9,037, just 0.2% below the GTX 560. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 scores 9,022, 0.4% below. The AMD Radeon 550X scores 8,918, 1.6% below, and the AMD Radeon 890M scores 9,210, 1.7% above. The GTX 560 lands at the 45th percentile among all GPUs, three points below the Tesla C2075. In the direct comparison, the Tesla leads by 14.8%, which is a substantial gap in a field where most rival deltas are under 2%. The benchmark data clearly favors the Tesla C2075 in OpenCL compute performance.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the Fermi 2.0 architecture and are fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The underlying design philosophy is identical, but the physical implementations diverge sharply. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip, a 520 mm² die containing 3,000 million transistors. The GTX 560 uses the GF114 chip, a 332 mm² die containing 1,950 million transistors. The Tesla’s die is 188 mm² larger and packs 1,050 million more transistors. Transistor density is nearly identical: 5.8M per mm² for the Tesla versus 5.9M per mm² for the GTX 560. The density difference is negligible, so the Tesla’s advantage comes entirely from scale, not from a more efficient layout.

Memory is where the Tesla C2075 clearly diverges. The Tesla has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 560 has 1,024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 128.0 GB/s. The Tesla offers 6 times the memory capacity and about 17% more bandwidth. The GTX 560 runs its memory at a higher effective speed: 4 Gbps versus 3.1 Gbps for the Tesla. But the Tesla’s wider 384-bit bus overcomes the clock disadvantage. The memory clock on the Tesla is 783 MHz, while the GTX 560 runs at 1,000 MHz. The GTX 560’s faster memory clock helps it reach 128.0 GB/s, but the Tesla’s extra two memory channels push it past 150 GB/s.

The shading unit count differs as noted: 448 for the Tesla versus 336 for the GTX 560. Texture mapping units are equal at 56 for both cards. Raster output units differ, with the Tesla at 48 and the GTX 560 at 32. The Tesla’s pixel rate is 16.07 GPixel/s, driven by its 48 ROPs. The GTX 560’s pixel rate is 11.34 GPixel/s, reflecting its 32 ROPs. The Tesla leads pixel throughput by roughly 42%. Texture rate is reversed: the GTX 560 reaches 45.36 GTexel/s, while the Tesla reaches 32.14 GTexel/s. Despite having the same 56 TMUs, the GTX 560 clocks its texture units higher, giving it a 41% texture rate advantage. This is an unusual split: the Tesla wins pixel fill and OpenCL compute, while the GTX 560 wins texture fill and peak FP32.

FP32 performance is close, with the GTX 560 slightly ahead at 1,088.6 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Tesla. Neither card has FP16 capabilities listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support is absent for both. The Tesla C2075 is part of the Tesla Fermi generation (x20xx), while the GTX 560 belongs to the GeForce 500 generation. The Tesla’s predecessor is listed as Tesla, with Tesla Kepler as its successor. The GTX 560’s predecessor is GeForce 400, with GeForce 600 as its successor.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 10,400 against the GTX 560’s 9,058, a margin of 14.8%.

Q: Does the GTX 560 have higher peak FP32 performance?

A: Yes, the GTX 560 reaches 1,088.6 GFLOPS, slightly above the Tesla C2075’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS, even though the Tesla wins the OpenCL test.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 560 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5. The Tesla also has a wider 384-bit bus compared to the GTX 560’s 256-bit bus, resulting in 150.3 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the die sizes for each card?

A: The Tesla C2075 uses a 520 mm² GF110 die with 3,000 million transistors. The GTX 560 uses a 332 mm² GF114 die with 1,950 million transistors.

Q: Which card has more ROPs and what does that affect?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 48 ROPs, giving it a pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s. The GTX 560 has 32 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 11.34 GPixel/s.

Q: Are both cards from the same architecture generation?

A: Yes, both are Fermi 2.0 on TSMC’s 40 nm process, but the Tesla C2075 is from the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation, while the GTX 560 is from the GeForce 500 generation.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification except architecture, foundry, and process node. The chip is GF110 for the Tesla C2075 and GF114 for the GTX 560. Transistor count is 3,000 million versus 1,950 million, and die size is 520 mm² versus 332 mm². Transistor density is nearly the same at 5.8M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm². Memory clock is 783 MHz for the Tesla versus 1,000 MHz for the GTX 560. Effective memory speed is 3.1 Gbps versus 4 Gbps. Memory size is 6 GB versus 1,024 MB. Memory bus width is 384-bit versus 256-bit. Memory bandwidth is 150.3 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 448 versus 336. TMUs are equal at 56 each. ROPs are 48 versus 32. Pixel rate is 16.07 GPixel/s versus 11.34 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 32.14 GTexel/s versus 45.36 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 1,088.6 GFLOPS. TDP is 247 W versus 150 W. Power connectors are 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin for the Tesla, versus 2x 6-pin for the GTX 560. Suggested PSU is 550 W versus 450 W. Display outputs are 1x DVI for the Tesla, versus 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for the GTX 560. Card length is 248 mm (9.8 inches) versus 210 mm (8.3 inches). The GTX 560 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD. The Tesla C2075 has no launch MSRP recorded. Release dates are close, with the Tesla on 2011-07-24 and the GTX 560 on 2011-05-16.

The Verdict

The data points to different buyers for each card. The Tesla C2075 wins the only recorded benchmark by 14.8% and sits at the 48th percentile, three points above the GTX 560’s 45th. Its 6 GB memory and 384-bit bus make it the clear choice for workloads that need large datasets resident on the GPU. The GTX 560, with its 150 W TDP and 199 USD launch MSRP, is the more restrained card, drawing 97 W less power and requiring a 450 W PSU instead of 550 W. The GTX 560 also offers a higher texture rate and higher peak FP32, but these do not translate into an OpenCL win. For compute tasks measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the Tesla C2075 is the stronger card by a wide margin. For lower power consumption and a smaller physical footprint, the GTX 560 has the edge. The Tesla’s 6 GB capacity dwarfs the GTX 560’s 1 GB, and that capacity advantage likely explains why the Tesla wins despite lower peak FP32.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla C2075 wins in OpenCL compute, pixel fill rate, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and ROP count. Its 6 GB frame buffer is six times larger than the GTX 560’s, and its 150.3 GB/s bandwidth is 17% higher. The 48 ROPs deliver 16.07 GPixel/s, well above the GTX 560’s 11.34 GPixel/s. The Tesla is also the longer card at 248 mm and consumes more power at 247 W, with a 550 W suggested PSU. These characteristics fit a compute-oriented card where memory size and pixel throughput matter more than efficiency.

The GTX 560 wins in texture rate, FP32 peak, memory clock, power efficiency, and display outputs. Its 45.36 GTexel/s texture rate is 41% higher than the Tesla’s 32.14 GTexel/s, and its 1,088.6 GFLOPS FP32 peak is about 6% higher. The GTX 560 runs memory at 4 Gbps effective, faster than the Tesla’s 3.1 Gbps. It draws only 150 W, uses 2x 6-pin connectors, and fits in a 210 mm chassis. It also provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs, while the Tesla offers only a single DVI. For gaming-oriented tasks that rely on texture throughput and lower power draw, the GTX 560 is the better fit. For compute workloads that need memory capacity and OpenCL performance, the Tesla C2075 is the clear winner in this pairing.