NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 represent two very different design philosophies from the same manufacturer, separated by roughly two years of architectural evolution. The GTX 780M is a mobile Kepler part that decisively wins the single available benchmark comparison, while the Tesla C2075 is a dual-slot workstation card based on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture. Benchmark data shows the GTX 780M leads with an average score of 11,261 against the Tesla C2075's 10,400, a 22.8% margin in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, yet the Tesla C2075 retains unique strengths in memory capacity and compute-specific design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M achieves an average benchmark score of 11,261, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. This places the GTX 780M in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Tesla C2075's 48th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 780M scores 12,769 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. The GTX 780M wins this head-to-head test with a 22.8% performance advantage.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: The Tesla C2075 features 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 780M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. Despite having less capacity, the GTX 780M delivers higher bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density on its die?

A: The GTX 780M, built on a 28 nm process, packs 12.0 million transistors per mm² across its 294 mm² die. The Tesla C2075, using a 40 nm process, has 5.8 million transistors per mm² on a larger 520 mm² die.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 support Vulkan?

A: No. The Tesla C2075 has a null Vulkan API entry in its specifications, while the GTX 780M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power connector requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 780M uses an MXM Module slot width and requires no power connectors, drawing a 122 W TDP. The Tesla C2075 is a dual-slot card with a 247 W TDP that requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector, with a suggested 550 W power supply.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The GTX 780M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². In contrast, the Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip based on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 40 nm process. This older node results in 3,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 520 mm² die, giving a transistor density of just 5.8 million per mm² — less than half that of the Kepler part.

The shading unit counts diverge sharply. The GTX 780M carries 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla C2075 has only 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This means the GTX 780M has more than three times the shading units and more than double the texture units, although the Tesla C2075 has 50% more ROPs. These differences directly impact compute throughput and texture processing capabilities.

Clock behavior also differs fundamentally. The GTX 780M has a defined base clock of 771 MHz with a boost clock of 797 MHz, while the Tesla C2075 lists no base or boost clock values in its specifications. Memory clocks show a similar pattern: the GTX 780M runs its GDDR5 at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Tesla C2075 runs at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). The GTX 780M's newer Kepler architecture supports Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan support listed, limiting it to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is unambiguous. The GTX 780M scores 12,769, while the Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. This gives the GTX 780M a 22.8% advantage, a decisive margin that reflects the architectural superiority of Kepler over Fermi 2.0 in compute workloads. The GTX 780M also has additional benchmark scores in Geekbench Metal (8,319) and Geekbench Vulkan (12,696), tests which the Tesla C2075 does not have results for.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all tests, the GTX 780M maintains its lead with 11,261 versus 10,400 for the Tesla C2075. This 861-point gap in average scores is consistent with the head-to-head result. The GTX 780M's nearest rivals in the data — the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 at 11,228 and AMD FirePro W4300 at 11,225 — are within 0.3% of its score, indicating it sits in a competitive mid-range tier. The Tesla C2075's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481, is actually 0.8% faster, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A trails it by 1.2% at 10,273.

The GTX 780M's compute throughput figures reinforce its benchmark victory. It delivers 2.448 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s, with a texture rate of 102.0 GTexel/s. The Tesla C2075, by contrast, offers 1,027.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, a pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 32.14 GTexel/s. Every raw compute metric favors the GTX 780M, often by more than double.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. Process node: the GTX 780M uses 28 nm versus the Tesla C2075's 40 nm. Transistor count is close at 3,540 million versus 3,000 million, but die size differs greatly (294 mm² versus 520 mm²). Transistor density is 12.0M per mm² versus 5.8M per mm².

Memory configuration favors the Tesla C2075 in capacity (6 GB versus 4 GB) and bus width (384-bit versus 256-bit), but the GTX 780M wins on bandwidth (160.0 GB/s versus 150.3 GB/s). Shading units are 1,536 versus 448, TMUs are 128 versus 56, and ROPs are 32 versus 48. The GTX 780M has higher pixel rate (25.50 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s) and much higher texture rate (102.0 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is 2.448 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics diverge completely. The GTX 780M has a TDP of 122 W, uses an MXM Module slot width, requires no power connectors, and has a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0). The Tesla C2075 has a 247 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires one 6-pin plus one 8-pin power connector, suggests a 550 W power supply, and uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The Tesla C2075 is 248 mm (9.8 inches) long and has one DVI display output, while the GTX 780M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The GTX 780M also has a memory clock of 1250 MHz versus 783 MHz for the Tesla C2075.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780M wins in every benchmark category that has data. It dominates raw compute performance, delivering 2.448 TFLOPS of FP32 power compared to the Tesla C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS — a 138% advantage. It also leads in texture processing with 102.0 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s, and in pixel throughput with 25.50 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it wins by 22.8%. For workloads that rely on shading units, the GTX 780M's 1,536 units provide an overwhelming advantage over the Tesla C2075's 448.

The Tesla C2075's advantages are narrower but real. It offers 6 GB of memory versus the GTX 780M's 4 GB, a 50% capacity increase that matters for large datasets. Its 384-bit memory bus is 50% wider than the GTX 780M's 256-bit bus. It also has 48 ROPs compared to 32, a 50% increase in raster operations capability. The Tesla C2075's 520 mm² die, while inefficient, allows for a larger physical implementation of the Fermi 2.0 architecture. For users needing maximum memory capacity in a dual-slot PCIe form factor, the Tesla C2075 has the edge.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M for almost any workload. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 22.8%, has a higher average benchmark score (11,261 versus 10,400), and sits at a higher percentile (50th versus 48th). Its Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process delivers more than double the FP32 performance, more than triple the texture rate, and a 59% higher pixel rate. The GTX 780M is also far more power-efficient at 122 W versus 247 W TDP. Any user prioritizing compute performance, texture throughput, or power efficiency should choose the GTX 780M.

The Tesla C2075 is the pick only in specific edge cases. If a workload requires more than 4 GB of memory, the Tesla C2075's 6 GB capacity is the deciding factor. If the system only supports PCIe 2.0 x16 and cannot accommodate an MXM module, the Tesla C2075's interface is the only compatible option. Its 48 ROPs also give it a slight edge in pure raster operations. However, these advantages come with a 247 W TDP, a dual-slot footprint, and a required 550 W power supply. The benchmark results are unequivocal: the GTX 780M is the faster GPU, and the Tesla C2075's niche value lies solely in memory capacity and interface compatibility.