NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 vs NVIDIA Tesla M10 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla M10 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 are both end-of-life graphics cards built on 28 nm silicon from TSMC, but they target opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The Tesla M10 is a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs, while the GTX 760 is a classic consumer gaming card with a full set of display connections. Benchmark data from Geekbench shows the GTX 760 winning both head-to-head tests, but the Tesla M10 holds its own in a specific compute niche. The GTX 760 posts an average benchmark score of 9458, placing it in the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla M10 averages 9724, landing in the 47th percentile. The two cards sit within 2.8% of each other on average, making their respective strengths a matter of workload rather than raw dominance.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 760 is the clear winner in the two available head-to-head benchmark comparisons. It beats the Tesla M10 by 8.7% in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 11299 against 10318. The gap widens dramatically in Geekbench Vulkan, where the GTX 760 scores 12551 versus the Tesla M10’s 9130 — a 27.3% advantage. This makes the GTX 760 the better choice for any workload that leverages Vulkan compute or general-purpose OpenCL tasks, which aligns with its consumer-oriented design and higher shading unit count.

The Tesla M10, despite losing both direct comparisons, still holds a slight edge in average benchmark score. Its 9724 average outperforms the GTX 760’s 9458 by roughly 2.8%, driven by its strong OpenCL result of 10318 and a Vulkan score of 9130. This suggests that in mixed or aggregated compute workloads, the Tesla M10’s 8 GB of GDDR5 memory provides a capacity advantage that compensates for its lower raw throughput. The Tesla M10 also sits closer to higher-tier rivals in its nearestRivals list — it is within 0.1% of the Tesla C2070 and 0.6% of the Quadro P4000 — whereas the GTX 760’s closest rival, the GTX TITAN BLACK, is only 0.2% ahead of it.

For memory-bound tasks, the Tesla M10 wins on capacity alone. Its 8 GB frame buffer is four times larger than the GTX 760’s 2 GB, which matters for datasets that exceed the smaller card’s limits. The GTX 760 counters with more than double the memory bandwidth: 192.3 GB/s versus 83.20 GB/s. In practice, the GTX 760 should handle streaming data faster, while the Tesla M10 can hold larger working sets in local memory without spilling to system RAM.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures. The Tesla M10 uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell, while the GTX 760 uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler. The Maxwell chip is physically smaller at 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors, giving it a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The Kepler chip is nearly twice the size at 294 mm² with 3,540 million transistors, though its density is slightly lower at 12.0M per mm². Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process.

The GTX 760 has significantly more execution resources. It packs 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, compared to the Tesla M10’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This nearly 2x advantage in shading units and TMUs explains the GTX 760’s higher theoretical throughput: 2.378 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1.672 TFLOPS, and 99.07 GTexel/s versus 52.24 GTexel/s. The GTX 760 also has a higher pixel rate at 24.77 GPixel/s versus 20.90 GPixel/s.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The Tesla M10 has a higher base clock of 1033 MHz and a boost clock of 1306 MHz, while the GTX 760 runs at 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost. The Maxwell chip’s higher clocks partially compensate for its fewer cores, but not enough to close the throughput gap. Memory clocks also favor the GTX 760: its 1502 MHz memory runs at 6 Gbps effective versus the Tesla M10’s 1300 MHz at 5.2 Gbps effective.

The memory interface is where the biggest architectural divergence appears. The GTX 760 uses a 256-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, yielding 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla M10 uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR5, yielding only 83.20 GB/s. This tradeoff is deliberate: the Tesla M10 prioritizes capacity for virtualized or multi-tenant compute workloads, while the GTX 760 prioritizes bandwidth for real-time rendering.

Feature support differs in software APIs. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Tesla M10 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the GTX 760 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. The Tesla M10 also has no display outputs, whereas the GTX 760 provides 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 760 draws 170 W with 2x 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the Tesla M10 draws 225 W with a single 8-pin connector and a 550 W suggested PSU. Both are dual-slot cards, but the Tesla M10 is longer at 267 mm versus 241 mm.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the closer of the two comparisons. The GTX 760 scores 11299, beating the Tesla M10’s 10318 by 8.7%. This result aligns with the GTX 760’s 42% higher FP32 throughput (2.378 TFLOPS versus 1.672 TFLOPS) and its 2.3x higher memory bandwidth. The Tesla M10’s higher boost clock of 1306 MHz and its 8 GB capacity cannot overcome the GTX 760’s raw compute advantage in this synthetic workload.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is a rout. The GTX 760 scores 12551, which is 27.3% higher than the Tesla M10’s 9130. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the GTX 760’s Kepler architecture is far more efficient at Vulkan compute tasks. The Tesla M10’s Vulkan 1.4 support does not translate into better performance; the GTX 760’s older Vulkan 1.2.175 implementation is clearly faster in practice. The GTX 760’s score of 12551 is also its best result across all benchmarks, while the Tesla M10’s Vulkan score is its weakest.

Notably, the Tesla M10’s OpenCL score of 10318 is its stronger result, and it is only 8.7% behind the GTX 760’s 11299 in that test. This suggests that in OpenCL-heavy workloads — common in scientific computing and data processing — the Tesla M10 is a credible performer despite its lower core count. The Tesla M10’s average benchmark score of 9724 is actually higher than the GTX 760’s 9458, even though the GTX 760 wins both direct head-to-head tests. This seeming contradiction resolves when considering that the GTX 760’s Vulkan score of 12551 pulls up its average, while its OpenCL score of 11299 is offset by a Geekbench Metal score of 4524, which the Tesla M10 does not have.

The head-to-head data shows a 2-0 win record for the GTX 760. The Tesla M10 has zero wins in direct comparisons. However, the Tesla M10’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1070, which averages 9780 and is only 0.6% ahead of the Tesla M10. This places the Tesla M10 in the company of far more modern cards, while the GTX 760’s nearest rivals — the GTX TITAN BLACK at 9474 and the Radeon R7 M380 at 9313 — are older or lower-tier parts.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Tesla M10 averages 9724, which is 2.8% higher than the GTX 760’s 9458. The Tesla M10 also sits in the 47th percentile of all GPUs versus the GTX 760’s 46th percentile.

Q: Why does the GTX 760 win both head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The GTX 760 wins Geekbench OpenCL with 11299 versus 10318 (an 8.7% margin) and Geekbench Vulkan with 12551 versus 9130 (a 27.3% margin). Its 1152 shading units and 192.3 GB/s memory bandwidth give it a decisive compute and bandwidth advantage.

Q: Does the Tesla M10 have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the Tesla M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the GTX 760’s 2 GB. This fourfold capacity advantage allows it to handle larger datasets, though its 83.20 GB/s bandwidth is less than half of the GTX 760’s 192.3 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Tesla M10 has a 225 W TDP with a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 550 W suggested PSU. The GTX 760 has a 170 W TDP with 2x 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card supports newer software standards?

A: The Tesla M10 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 760 additionally has display outputs, including 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Tesla M10 is 0.1% ahead of the Tesla C2070, 0.6% ahead of the Quadro P4000, and 0.7% ahead of the Radeon Pro WX 2100, while trailing the GTX 1070 by 0.6%. The GTX 760 trails the GTX TITAN BLACK by 0.2% and leads the Radeon R7 M380 by 1.6%, the GTX 850M by 1.7%, and the GTX 465 by 1.8%.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the GeForce GTX 760 is the superior card for general-purpose compute and any Vulkan-based workload. Its 27.3% lead in Vulkan and 8.7% lead in OpenCL make it the faster card in every direct benchmark comparison. The GTX 760 also offers dramatically higher memory bandwidth (192.3 GB/s versus 83.20 GB/s), more shading units (1152 versus 640), and higher FP32 throughput (2.378 TFLOPS versus 1.672 TFLOPS). For users who need display outputs, the GTX 760 is the only option of the two, providing 2x DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2.

The Tesla M10 is not without merit. Its 8 GB memory capacity is four times larger than the GTX 760’s 2 GB, making it the better choice for workloads that exceed 2 GB of working set. Its average benchmark score is also higher at 9724 versus 9458, and it ranks in the 47th percentile versus the GTX 760’s 46th. The Tesla M10 supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer standard than the GTX 760’s Vulkan 1.2.175, and its nearest rivals include the GTX 1070, indicating it competes with a more modern class of hardware.

The verdict depends on the use case. For rendering, gaming-era compute, or any task that benefits from high bandwidth and Vulkan acceleration, the GTX 760 is the clear winner. For large-memory compute workloads where capacity matters more than speed, and where display output is unnecessary, the Tesla M10’s 8 GB frame buffer and higher average score make it the more suitable accelerator. The GTX 760’s launch MSRP was 249 USD; the Tesla M10 has no listed launch MSRP. Both cards are end-of-life, but the GTX 760 offers more raw performance per watt at 170 W versus 225 W, making it the more efficient choice for most users.