NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively in favor of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M. The GTX 780M scores 12,769 points against the Tesla C2070’s 9,716 points, a margin of 31.4%. This is not a narrow win; it is a substantial performance gap that places the two GPUs in different performance tiers despite their shared manufacturer.

The GTX 780M’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 11,261, which places it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 at 11,228 (0.3% behind), the AMD FirePro W4300 at 11,225 (0.3% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 (1.6% behind). This clustering indicates the GTX 780M sits at the midpoint of the performance distribution, with its closest competitors all within a 1.6% band. The margins are tight enough that application-specific optimizations could flip the ordering in any given workload.

The Tesla C2070’s average benchmark score is 9,716, placing it at the 47th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla M10 at 9,724 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780 (0.7% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (0.5% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653 (0.7% behind). The C2070 is effectively in a dead heat with these four cards, all of which are separated by less than 1.4%. This suggests the C2070’s compute capability is well within the range of mid-generation workstation and consumer GPUs, but it is clearly outclassed by the GTX 780M’s OpenCL throughput.

Looking at the percentile positioning, the difference of 3 percentile points (50th vs 47th) understates the raw performance gap. The GTX 780M delivers 31.4% more compute throughput in the OpenCL test, which is a far more meaningful indicator for compute-bound workloads than the percentile ranking. The data shows a clear hierarchy: the GTX 780M leads by a wide margin in the only head-to-head measurement available.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural eras from NVIDIA. The GeForce GTX 780M uses the GK104 chip built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Tesla C2070 uses the GF100 chip built on the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 40 nm means the Kepler design achieves roughly double the transistor density, 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter versus 5.9 million.

The physical chip characteristics reinforce the generational gap. The GK104 packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, while the GF100 contains 3,100 million transistors spread across a much larger 529 mm² die. The smaller, denser Kepler chip achieves higher performance with fewer resources dedicated to the memory subsystem’s physical layout.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The GTX 780M has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Tesla C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 texture units, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 780M has more than three times the shader count and more than double the texture units, while the C2070 retains a ROP advantage. These counts translate directly into throughput metrics: the GTX 780M’s FP32 performance is 2.448 TFLOPS versus the C2070’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 2.4 times. Pixel rate also favors the newer card, 25.50 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s, while texture rate is dramatically higher on the GTX 780M, 102.0 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations differ in capacity and bandwidth. The GTX 780M ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla C2070 ships with 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, but only achieves 143.4 GB/s due to its lower memory clock of 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 780M’s 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The C2070’s wider bus partially compensates, but the GTX 780M still wins on raw bandwidth by 11.6% while using half the memory interface width.

Power and form factor data show contrasting design philosophies. The GTX 780M has a TDP of 122 W and uses an MXM Module slot with no dedicated power connectors, reflecting its mobile laptop heritage. The Tesla C2070 draws 238 W, uses a dual-slot form factor with 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and requires a 550 W suggested PSU. The C2070 is a desktop compute card with a 248 mm length (9.8 inches), while the GTX 780M is a portable-device-dependent module.

API support is another differentiator. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 780M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the C2070 has no Vulkan support listed in the database. This makes the GTX 780M more future-proof for modern graphics APIs, even though both are end-of-life products. The GTX 780M was released in May 2013, while the Tesla C2070 came out in July 2011.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a single conclusion for compute workloads: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M is the stronger performer. Its OpenCL score of 12,769 versus 9,716 represents a 31.4% advantage, and its average benchmark score of 11,261 versus 9,716 confirms the trend. The GTX 780M also offers higher FP32 compute (2.448 TFLOPS vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS), more texture throughput (102.0 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s), and higher memory bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 143.4 GB/s), all while consuming roughly half the power (122 W vs 238 W).

The Tesla C2070 does retain certain advantages. It has 6 GB of memory versus 4 GB, which matters for datasets that require larger resident working sets. It also has more ROPs (48 vs 32), which could benefit pixel-heavy operations, and its 384-bit memory bus provides a foundation for higher bandwidth if clocks were higher. However, these advantages do not translate into a benchmark win. The C2070’s only recorded score is the OpenCL test where it loses decisively.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life GPUs, the data favors the GTX 780M unless the specific requirement is memory capacity above 4 GB. The GTX 780M wins the only head-to-head test, has a better percentile ranking (50th vs 47th), and offers superior architectural efficiency. The C2070’s place in the database shows it performs comparably to mid-range cards like the Tesla M10 and Quadro P4000, but the GTX 780M sits a full tier above.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 12,769 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Tesla C2070 scores 9,716. The GTX 780M wins by 31.4%.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: The GTX 780M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Tesla C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use GDDR5, but the C2070 offers 2 GB more capacity.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The GTX 780M has a TDP of 122 W and requires no dedicated power connectors, using an MXM Module slot. The Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 780M additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Tesla C2070 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The GTX 780M delivers 2.448 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the Tesla C2070’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS. This represents more than double the compute throughput.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU in the database?

A: For the GTX 780M, the closest competitors are the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228, 0.3% behind) and AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225, 0.3% behind). For the Tesla C2070, the closest are the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724, 0.1% ahead) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.7% ahead).

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M wins in compute-intensive workloads. The OpenCL benchmark shows a 31.4% advantage, and the FP32 throughput of 2.448 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS indicates strong performance in general-purpose compute tasks like physics simulation, image processing, and machine learning inference that rely on shader parallelism. The 1,536 shading units provide more than triple the execution resources of the C2070’s 448 units. The higher texture rate (102.0 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s) also favors workloads that sample textures heavily, such as rendering and post-processing effects.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M wins in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. Despite having a narrower 256-bit bus, the GTX 780M’s faster memory clock (5 Gbps effective vs 3 Gbps) results in 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, beating the C2070’s 143.4 GB/s. For applications that stream large data sets through the memory subsystem, such as video encoding or large matrix operations, the GTX 780M has the edge.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M wins in power-constrained environments. The 122 W TDP versus 238 W means the GTX 780M can be deployed in systems with smaller power budgets or where thermal management is a concern. Its MXM Module form factor, while not a standard desktop PCIe card, makes it suitable for portable or compact systems. The lack of external power connectors simplifies installation in compatible chassis.

NVIDIA Tesla C2070 wins in memory capacity scenarios. The 6 GB frame buffer versus 4 GB is the C2070’s most tangible advantage. Workloads that require holding larger datasets in GPU memory, such as certain scientific computing simulations or rendering scenes with large texture atlases, benefit from the additional 2 GB. The wider 384-bit bus also provides a structural foundation for memory expansion, even though the effective bandwidth is lower.

NVIDIA Tesla C2070 wins in pixel-output tasks. The C2070 has 48 ROPs versus the GTX 780M’s 32, which could improve performance in fill-rate-bound operations like rasterization with high pixel counts or multiple render targets. Its pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s is lower than the GTX 780M’s 25.50 GPixel/s, so this advantage is structural rather than realized in the measured data.

NVIDIA Tesla C2070 wins in legacy compute deployments. With a release date of July 2011, the C2070 is an earlier product, and its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface with a 1x DVI display output makes it compatible with older workstation motherboards that lack newer expansion slots. The dual-slot form factor and standard power connectors are typical of server and workstation installations, whereas the GTX 780M’s MXM-B (3.0) interface is laptop-specific.