NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 and NVIDIA Tesla C2075 occupy very different positions in the GPU landscape, despite sharing a manufacturer. The GTX 670 is a consumer-focused graphics card from the GeForce 600 generation, built for gaming and general-purpose compute. The Tesla C2075 is a professional compute card from the Tesla Fermi line, designed for scientific and enterprise workloads. The recorded benchmark data provides a clear picture of how these two compare in raw compute performance, and the specifications reveal fundamental architectural differences that explain their respective strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark recorded between these two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 scores 15,341 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 points. The GTX 670 wins this head-to-head matchup with a delta of 47.5 percent. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the GTX 670 delivers significantly higher raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads as measured by this benchmark.

To put the GTX 670's score into perspective, its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 12,773 points. This places it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 with an average score of 12,830 (a delta of -0.4 percent), the AMD Radeon Pro 455 with 12,831 (also -0.4 percent), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT with 12,710 (a delta of 0.5 percent). The GTX 670 sits right in the middle of this cluster, essentially tied with these competitors. The data shows that the GTX 670 is a mid-pack performer, neither a standout nor a laggard among its peers.

The Tesla C2075, on the other hand, has an average benchmark score of 10,400, which places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M with an average score of 10,362 (a delta of 0.4 percent), the AMD Radeon RX 550X with 10,481 (a delta of -0.8 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A with 10,273 (a delta of 1.2 percent). The Tesla C2075 is similarly clustered with its rivals, but that cluster sits roughly 20 percent below the GTX 670's performance level. The 47.5 percent delta in the head-to-head test is consistent with this overall gap: the GTX 670 is the faster card in compute tasks as measured by the database.

It is importantly the GTX 670 has two additional benchmark scores recorded: a Geekbench Metal score of 7,424 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 15,553. The Tesla C2075 has no recorded scores for these tests, so no direct comparison is possible. However, the Vulkan score for the GTX 670 is very close to its OpenCL score, suggesting consistent performance across different compute APIs. The Metal score is lower, which is expected given that Metal is primarily a graphics API and the GTX 670 is an older card without native Metal optimizations in the same way newer cards have.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the GTX 670 wins the only direct comparison available. Its 47.5 percent lead in OpenCL is decisive, and its overall average benchmark score is 23 percent higher than the Tesla C2075's average (12,773 versus 10,400). The GTX 670 also has a higher percentile ranking, sitting at 52 compared to the Tesla's 48. In any compute workload that relies on OpenCL, the GTX 670 is the clear choice.

The Tesla C2075, however, has strengths that are not captured in the benchmark scores. It has a much larger memory pool: 6 GB compared to the GTX 670's 2 GB. This is a significant advantage for workloads that require large datasets to reside on the GPU, such as certain scientific simulations, data processing, or machine learning inference tasks that exceed the 2 GB capacity of the GTX 670. The Tesla C2075 also has a wider memory bus at 384 bits versus the GTX 670's 256 bits, and while its memory bandwidth is lower (150.3 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s), the larger capacity can be more important than raw bandwidth for memory-bound problems.

The Tesla C2075 is also a dual-slot card like the GTX 670, but it is designed for compute density, not graphics output. It has only a single DVI output, whereas the GTX 670 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. For users who need to drive multiple displays, the GTX 670 is the only viable option from these two. For users who need a compute accelerator in a server or workstation without display requirements, the Tesla C2075's larger memory could be the deciding factor despite its lower compute throughput.

The data alone cannot declare a single winner for all use cases. The GTX 670 wins on raw compute speed and graphics versatility. The Tesla C2075 wins on memory capacity and its professional compute pedigree. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload is memory-limited or compute-limited.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The GTX 670 uses the GK104 chip, which is based on the Kepler architecture. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip, based on the Fermi 2.0 architecture. Kepler was a major redesign from Fermi, focusing on efficiency and higher clock speeds, while Fermi was known for its strong compute capabilities, particularly in double-precision floating point, which is not captured in the recorded benchmarks.

The manufacturing process differs as well. The GTX 670 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Tesla C2075 uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller process node allows the GTX 670 to pack 3,540 million transistors into a die size of 294 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Tesla C2075 has 3,000 million transistors on a much larger die of 520 mm², giving it a density of only 5.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 670 is more than twice as dense, which is a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing process.

The compute resources reflect these architectural choices. The GTX 670 has 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The GTX 670 has three times the shading units and double the texture units, but the Tesla C2075 has 50 percent more render output units. This explains the GTX 670's higher pixel rate (27.44 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (109.8 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s). The Tesla's higher ROP count is more relevant for certain memory-intensive operations, but the GTX 670's massive advantage in shading and texture units dominates in general compute.

The GTX 670 also has a higher peak FP32 performance at 2.634 TFLOPS, compared to the Tesla C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). This is a 2.5x advantage for the GTX 670, which aligns with the observed benchmark delta. The Tesla C2075 does not have a recorded FP16 performance figure, and neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies.

The memory architectures differ significantly. The GTX 670 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s. The Tesla C2075 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, but its bandwidth is lower at 150.3 GB/s due to a lower memory clock (783 MHz versus 1502 MHz). The Tesla's memory clock is effectively 3.1 Gbps, while the GTX 670 runs at 6 Gbps effective. This means the GTX 670 has higher bandwidth but less capacity, a classic trade-off.

The bus interface also differs: the GTX 670 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Tesla C2075 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The newer PCIe standard doubles the theoretical bandwidth between the GPU and the host system, which can matter for workloads that stream data to and from the CPU.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The GTX 670 has a base clock of 915 MHz and a boost clock of 980 MHz, while the Tesla C2075 has no recorded base or boost clock. The GTX 670's memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), compared to the Tesla's 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). Memory size is 2 GB for the GTX 670 versus 6 GB for the Tesla. The bus width is 256 bits versus 384 bits. Bandwidth is 192.3 GB/s versus 150.3 GB/s.

Shading units are 1,344 versus 448. TMUs are 112 versus 56. ROPs are 32 versus 48. Pixel rate is 27.44 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 109.8 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.634 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 670 has a TDP of 170 W, while the Tesla C2075 draws 247 W. Power connectors are 2x 6-pin for the GTX 670 and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin for the Tesla. The suggested PSU is 450 W for the GTX 670 and 550 W for the Tesla.

The GTX 670 has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 for the GTX 670, versus a single DVI for the Tesla. The GTX 670 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Tesla has no Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 670 has a length of 241 mm (9.5 inches), a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), and a width of 38 mm (1.5 inches). The Tesla C2075 has a length of 248 mm (9.8 inches) but no recorded height or width. Both cards are dual-slot.

The GTX 670 was released on 2012-05-09, with the Tesla C2075 following on 2011-07-24. The GTX 670 has a launch MSRP of 399 USD, while the Tesla C2075 has no recorded launch price. Both are end-of-life products. The GTX 670's predecessor is the GeForce 500 series, and its successor is the GeForce 700 series. The Tesla C2075's predecessor is the Tesla series, and its successor is Tesla Kepler.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 15,341 versus the Tesla C2075's 10,400, a 47.5 percent advantage.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 have any advantage over the GTX 670?

A: Yes, the Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of memory compared to the GTX 670's 2 GB, and a wider 384-bit memory bus. This makes it better suited for workloads that require large memory capacity.

Q: What architectures do these cards use?

A: The GTX 670 uses the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process, while the Tesla C2075 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture on a 40 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Q: Do these cards support modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 670 also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan support.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX 670 has a TDP of 170 W, while the Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W. The Tesla also requires a higher suggested PSU of 550 W versus 450 W for the GTX 670.

Q: Which card is better for multi-display setups?

A: The GTX 670, which offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Tesla C2075 has only a single DVI output, making it unsuitable for multi-display use.