NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 has an average benchmark score of 9716, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost averages 8067. The Tesla C2070 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, the GTX 650 Ti Boost at the 42nd.

Q: What is the architectural difference between the two?

A: The Tesla C2070 uses the Fermi architecture (GF100 chip) on a 40 nm process, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost uses the Kepler architecture (GK106 chip) on a 28 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Tesla C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 650 Ti Boost has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 144.2 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the larger bus, the Tesla's bandwidth is only slightly lower.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the GTX 650 Ti Boost supports Vulkan (version 1.2.175). The Tesla C2070 has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W and requires a 550 W suggested power supply with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The GTX 650 Ti Boost has a TDP of 134 W, a 300 W suggested PSU, and needs only a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card has higher shading unit count?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost has 768 shading units, while the Tesla C2070 has 448. However, the Tesla has more ROPs (48 vs 24) and a higher FP32 compute rating in terms of raw throughput per unit time.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head result in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Tesla C2070 wins with 9716 against the GTX 650 Ti Boost's 9302, a 4.5% advantage. This makes the Tesla the clear winner in compute-oriented workloads, which aligns with its position as a professional accelerator. The GTX 650 Ti Boost, however, has three separate benchmark entries (OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan), indicating broader API coverage and likely better driver support for consumer-facing applications.

For gaming and consumer workloads, the GTX 650 Ti Boost is the more practical choice. It has a higher texture rate (66.05 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s) and a slightly higher pixel rate (16.51 GPixel/s vs 16.07 GPixel/s). Its boost clock of 1032 MHz and base clock of 980 MHz give it a clock-speed advantage that the Tesla lacks entirely, as the Tesla has no listed base or boost clock. The Kepler architecture's efficiency (134 W TDP vs 238 W) also makes it far easier to integrate into a standard desktop build.

The Tesla C2070 wins on memory capacity (6 GB vs 2 GB) and bus width (384-bit vs 192-bit), making it better suited for large datasets and memory-intensive compute tasks. Its 448 shading units paired with 56 TMUs and 48 ROPs suggest a design optimized for throughput rather than latency. The GTX 650 Ti Boost counters with 768 shading units and 64 TMUs, which helps in geometry-heavy and texture-heavy workloads.

Architecture Differences

The Tesla C2070 is built on Fermi, NVIDIA's architecture from the GF100 chip. It uses a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. Fermi was designed with compute workloads in mind, which explains the high ROP count (48) and the large 384-bit memory interface. The Tesla line is positioned for professional and scientific computing, and its architecture reflects that focus.

The GTX 650 Ti Boost uses Kepler, the GK106 chip, on a 28 nm process. It packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. Kepler was a major architectural shift for NVIDIA, emphasizing efficiency and higher clock speeds. The GTX 650 Ti Boost has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1032 MHz, while the Tesla has no clock specifications listed. Kepler also introduced better geometry processing and more scalable shading units, which is why the GTX 650 Ti Boost has 768 shading units despite being a mid-range part.

The memory subsystems differ significantly. The Tesla uses 747 MHz memory (3 Gbps effective) across a 384-bit bus, yielding 143.4 GB/s. The GTX 650 Ti Boost uses 1502 MHz memory (6 Gbps effective) on a 192-bit bus, yielding 144.2 GB/s. The Kepler card achieves similar bandwidth with half the bus width due to faster memory clocks. The Tesla's 6 GB capacity is triple the GTX 650 Ti Boost's 2 GB, but the GTX has a slight bandwidth edge.

API support also diverges. The GTX 650 Ti Boost lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Tesla does not support Vulkan. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX also supports Metal (it has a Geekbench Metal score), while the Tesla only has OpenCL results.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Tesla C2070 | GTX 650 Ti Boost |

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

| Process node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 2,540 million |

| Die size | 529 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor density | 5.9M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Memory size | 6 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory bus | 384 bit | 192 bit |

| Bandwidth | 143.4 GB/s | 144.2 GB/s |

| Shading units | 448 | 768 |

| TMUs | 56 | 64 |

| ROPs | 48 | 24 |

| Pixel rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 16.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 66.05 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 1.585 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 238 W | 134 W |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 300 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan support | No | Yes (1.2.175) |

The GTX 650 Ti Boost has a base clock of 980 MHz and boost clock of 1032 MHz; the Tesla has none listed. The GTX memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the Tesla's 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). Release dates differ: the Tesla launched in July 2011, the GTX in March 2013.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The Tesla C2070 scores 9716, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 9302. That gives the Tesla a 4.5% lead. This is a modest margin, but it is consistent across the architecture differences: the Tesla's wider memory bus and higher ROP count help in compute tasks that are memory-latency sensitive.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The Tesla C2070's 9716 puts it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9724), 0.5% ahead of the Quadro P4000 (9665), and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9653). It trails the GeForce GTX 1070 (9780) by 0.7%. The GTX 650 Ti Boost's 9302 OpenCL score is its second-best result; its average of 8067 is dragged down by the Metal score of 4858. Its Vulkan score of 10041 is its highest, and that test shows the Kepler architecture's strength in modern APIs.

The GTX 650 Ti Boost's texture rate advantage is substantial: 66.05 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s, more than double. This explains why it wins in texture-bound workloads despite losing the OpenCL compute test. Its FP32 rating of 1.585 TFLOPS also exceeds the Tesla's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, but the Tesla's OpenCL score suggests better utilization in real compute tasks.

The pixel rates are nearly identical (16.51 vs 16.07 GPixel/s), meaning fill-rate-bound scenarios will be close. The Tesla's 48 ROPs versus 24 suggests better multi-sample anti-aliasing performance, but the GTX's higher clock speed compensates.

The Verdict

For compute workloads, the Tesla C2070 is the better pick. Its 4.5% OpenCL lead over the GTX 650 Ti Boost, combined with 6 GB of memory and a 384-bit bus, makes it suitable for large data sets and professional compute tasks. Its 47th percentile ranking versus the GTX's 42nd confirms the overall performance edge. The 238 W TDP and dual power connectors are the cost of that capability, but for a workstation card, that is acceptable.

For gaming and consumer use, the GTX 650 Ti Boost is the obvious choice. It has more shading units (768 vs 448), double the texture rate, PCIe 3.0 support, and a full suite of display outputs (2x DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort) versus the Tesla's single DVI. Its 134 W TDP and 300 W PSU requirement make it far easier to install. The Vulkan support and Metal benchmark indicate modern API compatibility that the Tesla lacks entirely.

The data does not support recommending the Tesla for anything other than compute. Its single display output and lack of Vulkan are disqualifying for general use. Conversely, the GTX 650 Ti Boost's 2 GB memory and 192-bit bus limit its compute potential, but its efficiency and feature set make it the more versatile card.

The Verdict is straightforward: if the workload is OpenCL compute and memory capacity matters, take the Tesla C2070. If the workload involves gaming, texturing, or modern API features, take the GTX 650 Ti Boost. The benchmarks show a narrow 4.5% compute gap, but the architectural differences create a much wider split in practical use cases.