NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A and NVIDIA Tesla C2070 represent two distinct generations of GPU design, and the benchmark data shows a clear, if modest, victory for the newer Maxwell-based part. In the sole available OpenCL benchmark, the GTX 950A scores 10,273, while the Tesla C2070 trails with 9,716. This 5.7% delta places the GTX 950A ahead, though both cards find themselves clustered in the same performance tier, sitting at the 48th and 47th percentiles of all GPUs, respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 950A takes a decisive win. The score of 10,273 against the C2070's 9,716 translates to a 5.7% performance advantage. This is not a landslide victory, but it is a consistent one. The data shows the GTX 950A also edges out its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M375, by 2%, and sits just 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6500M. This positions the GTX 950A as a solid mid-tier performer.

The Tesla C2070, despite its older Fermi architecture, is not far off. Its 9,716 score puts it within striking distance, and it actually outperforms the GeForce GTX 950A's other rivals, beating the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 by 0.7% and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 by 0.5%. The C2070 also trails the NVIDIA Tesla M10 by a mere 0.1%, showing it can still hold its own against much newer workstation parts. The 5.7% gap between these two cards is the entire story in numerical terms: the GTX 950A wins the only head-to-head contest, but the C2070 is competitive enough to avoid being embarrassed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273 on the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is 5.7% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla C2070's 9,716.

Q: How does the GTX 950A's score compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 950A is 2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375 and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6500M. It is also 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2075.

Q: How does the Tesla C2070's score compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Tesla C2070 is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100. It trails the NVIDIA Tesla M10 by 0.1% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 by 0.7%.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 950A has a pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Tesla C2070's 16.07 GPixel/s.

Q: Which card has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The GTX 950A also leads here with a texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s, compared to the Tesla C2070's 32.14 GTexel/s.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 (single-precision) performance?

A: The GTX 950A is substantially ahead, delivering 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus the Tesla C2070's 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

The Verdict

For a general-purpose or gaming-focused workload, the data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A. It wins the only available benchmark, and its superior pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput suggest it will handle graphics-intensive tasks more fluidly. Its 5.7% lead in OpenCL is backed up by a 12% advantage in pixel fill rate and a 40% advantage in texture fill rate. If the choice is between these two for a system where raw compute and graphics rendering speed are the priority, the GTX 950A is the stronger pick.

However, the Tesla C2070 is not without its own appeal. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus provides a massive 143.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is over four times the 32.03 GB/s of the GTX 950A. For workloads that are heavily memory-bound, such as large dataset processing or certain scientific computations, this bandwidth advantage could be a deciding factor. The C2070's score of 9,716 is also only 5.7% behind, meaning it is not a generation-defining gap. The verdict depends on the workload: the GTX 950A for compute density and graphics, the Tesla C2070 for memory capacity and bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 950A is built on a 28 nm process and packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, while the Tesla C2070 uses a 40 nm process with 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die. This results in a significantly higher transistor density for the GTX 950A at 12.6M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm² for the C2070.

Clock speeds also diverge. The GTX 950A has a base clock of 993 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the Tesla C2070's base and boost clocks are not listed. The memory clocks are 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the GTX 950A and 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the C2070.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The GTX 950A has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 32.03 GB/s of bandwidth. The C2070 counters with 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 143.4 GB/s. The compute units also differ: the GTX 950A has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs.

Power and physical requirements are starkly contrasted. The GTX 950A has a TDP of 75 W, uses an MXM Module slot width, and requires no power connectors. The C2070 has a TDP of 238 W, is a dual-slot card, and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The bus interface also differs: MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 950A versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the C2070. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the GTX 950A, while the C2070 offers a single DVI output.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is fundamental. The GTX 950A is based on the GM107 chip and the Maxwell architecture, while the C2070 uses the GF100 chip and the older Fermi architecture. Both are built by TSMC, but on different nodes: 28 nm for Maxwell and 40 nm for Fermi.

The Maxwell architecture is designed for efficiency, which is evident in the GTX 950A's 75 W TDP, a fraction of the C2070's 238 W. The Fermi architecture, by contrast, was a high-power, high-performance design. The GTX 950A's Maxwell design achieves higher FP32 throughput (1,438.7 GFLOPS) with fewer transistors (1,870 million) than Fermi's 1,027.7 GFLOPS from 3,100 million transistors. This is a direct result of the architectural and process improvements.

In terms of feature support, both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the C2070's Vulkan support is not listed. The C2070's memory operation relies on a wide 384-bit GDDR5 interface, while the GTX 950A uses a narrower 128-bit DDR3 bus. The C2070 also has a longer physical footprint at 248 mm, though the GTX 950A's dimensions are dependent on the portable device it is installed in. The release dates show the generational gap: the C2070 launched in July 2011, while the GTX 950A arrived in March 2015. The C2070's successor is listed as Tesla Kepler, while the GTX 950A's predecessor was the GeForce 800A.