NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents a narrow but clear picture. Across the single shared benchmark test, Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 outperforms the NVIDIA Tesla C2075. The head-to-head comparison shows the GTX 760 scoring 11,299 against the Tesla C2075's 10,400, a delta of 8% in favor of the GeForce card. This gives the GTX 760 one win out of one head-to-head test. The Tesla C2075 records zero wins in direct comparison.

However, context matters. The Tesla C2075 has only one benchmark entry in the database, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 10,400. The GTX 760 has three recorded benchmarks: Geekbench Metal at 4,524, Geekbench OpenCL at 11,299, and Geekbench Vulkan at 12,551. The Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan or Metal scores recorded, so those application programming interface (API) workloads cannot be compared. The data implies the GTX 760 is the more versatile card across modern compute APIs, while the Tesla C2075's single score suggests it was primarily evaluated through OpenCL.

The percentile rankings tell a different story about overall standing. The Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, slightly higher than the GTX 760's 46th percentile. This is curious given the GTX 760's higher raw OpenCL score. The explanation may lie in the average benchmark score: the Tesla C2075 averages 10,400, while the GTX 760 averages 9,458. The GTX 760's average is dragged down by its low Metal score of 4,524, a workload where the Tesla has no recorded data. So in OpenCL specifically, the GTX 760 wins; in aggregate across all recorded workloads, the Tesla appears more consistent.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct NVIDIA architectures from different process generations. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 760 uses the GK104 chip built on Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process shrink is significant: 40 nm versus 28 nm, which directly impacts transistor density. The Tesla packs 3,000 million transistors onto a 520 mm² die, yielding 5.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 760 crams 3,540 million transistors onto a much smaller 294 mm² die, achieving 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Kepler design more than doubles the transistor density.

The compute core configurations differ substantially. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The GTX 760 has 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The GTX 760 has nearly 2.6 times the shading units and nearly 1.7 times the texture units, but fewer render output units. This explains the texture rate disparity: the GTX 760 achieves 99.07 GTexel/s versus the Tesla's 32.14 GTexel/s. The pixel rate flips: the GTX 760 hits 24.77 GPixel/s, the Tesla 16.07 GPixel/s.

Clock behavior also differs. The GTX 760 has a defined base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1,032 MHz. The Tesla C2075 records no base or boost clock values in the database. Memory clocks show the GTX 760's memory running at 1,502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the Tesla's memory runs at 783 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective. The Tesla's memory interface is wider at 384 bit versus the GTX 760's 256 bit, but the GTX 760's higher clock speed yields greater bandwidth: 192.3 GB/s versus 150.3 GB/s.

The Verdict

The data directs different users toward different cards. For raw OpenCL compute performance, the GeForce GTX 760 is the clear choice, posting an 8% higher score in the head-to-head benchmark. Its shading unit count more than doubles the Tesla C2075's, and its texture and pixel rates are substantially higher. The GTX 760 also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which the Tesla does not list, and offers a higher effective memory bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

The Tesla C2075 appeals to a different profile. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory is triple the GTX 760's 2 GB. For workloads that demand large memory allocations, this capacity advantage is decisive. The Tesla also records a higher percentile ranking at 48 versus 46, and its average benchmark score of 10,400 exceeds the GTX 760's 9,458 average. The Tesla's Fermi architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, matching the GTX 760's API support on those fronts, though the GTX 760 adds Vulkan.

Users prioritizing peak compute throughput and modern API coverage should select the GTX 760. Users needing maximum memory capacity or a more consistent average score across the limited benchmark set should consider the Tesla C2075. The GTX 760's launch MSRP was 249 USD, a detail recorded in the database. The Tesla C2075 has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which card scores higher in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 scores 11,299, which is 8% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla C2075's 10,400.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 have more memory than the GTX 760?

A: Yes, the Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 760 has 1,152 shading units. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, less than half of the GTX 760's count.

Q: Does the GTX 760 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GTX 760 lists Vulkan support at version 1.2.175. The Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan version recorded in the database.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 760 has a transistor density of 12.0M per mm², more than double the Tesla C2075's 5.8M per mm².

Q: What is the GTX 760's launch MSRP?

A: The GTX 760 had a launch MSRP of 249 USD. The Tesla C2075 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 760 wins with 11,299 points against the Tesla C2075's 10,400 points, a margin of 8%. This result aligns with the compute resource disparity: the GTX 760's 1,152 shading units and 96 texture units give it a structural advantage in parallel workloads. Its FP32 performance of 2.378 TFLOPS more than doubles the Tesla's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 760 also achieves a texture rate of 99.07 GTexel/s, roughly three times the Tesla's 32.14 GTexel/s.

The Tesla C2075's strengths do not appear in this single benchmark. Its 384 bit memory bus and 6 GB capacity might benefit specific memory-bound workloads, but OpenCL scoring here favors the GTX 760's higher clocks and greater shader count. The GTX 760's base clock of 980 MHz and boost of 1,032 MHz, combined with memory at 6 Gbps effective, likely contribute to its higher score. The Tesla's memory runs at 3.1 Gbps effective, and its pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s trails the GTX 760's 24.77 GPixel/s.

Notably, the GTX 760 has additional benchmark records beyond OpenCL. Its Metal score of 4,524 is far below its OpenCL score, suggesting the card's performance varies significantly by API. Its Vulkan score of 12,551 is the highest of its three recorded scores, implying Vulkan workloads may extract even more performance. The Tesla C2075 has no such alternative API scores, leaving its behavior in Metal or Vulkan unmeasured.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every recorded specification. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip on Fermi 2.0 architecture with a 40 nm process. The GTX 760 uses the GK104 chip on Kepler architecture with a 28 nm process. Transistor counts differ: 3,000 million for the Tesla, 3,540 million for the GTX 760. Die size favors the GTX 760 at 294 mm² versus the Tesla's 520 mm². Transistor density is 5.8M per mm² for the Tesla and 12.0M per mm² for the GTX 760.

Clock specifications show the GTX 760 with base and boost clocks of 980 MHz and 1,032 MHz, respectively, while the Tesla records none. Memory clocks: the Tesla runs at 783 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective; the GTX 760 runs at 1,502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. Memory capacity: 6 GB for the Tesla, 2 GB for the GTX 760. Bus width: 384 bit for the Tesla, 256 bit for the GTX 760. Bandwidth: 150.3 GB/s for the Tesla, 192.3 GB/s for the GTX 760.

Compute resources diverge sharply. Shading units: 448 for the Tesla, 1,152 for the GTX 760. Texture units: 56 for the Tesla, 96 for the GTX 760. Render output units: 48 for the Tesla, 32 for the GTX 760. Pixel rate: 16.07 GPixel/s versus 24.77 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 32.14 GTexel/s versus 99.07 GTexel/s. FP32 compute: 1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 2.378 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Tesla has a TDP of 247 W, the GTX 760 a lower 170 W. The Tesla requires a 550 W suggested PSU and uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. The GTX 760 requires a 450 W suggested PSU and uses 2x 6-pin connectors. Both are dual-slot cards. The Tesla measures 248 mm in length, the GTX 760 241 mm. The Tesla offers a single DVI output; the GTX 760 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Tesla, PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 760. API support matches on DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 760 adds Vulkan 1.2.175. The Tesla's release date is 2011-07-24, and the GTX 760's is 2013-06-24.