NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is remarkably close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M scores 9,745, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716. The delta is a mere 0.3% in favor of the GTX 950M, which is within the margin of error for most test runs. In practical terms, these two cards deliver nearly identical raw compute throughput in this workload, despite their vastly different architectures and market positions.

The GTX 950M also has a second benchmark result, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 6,525. The Tesla C2070 has no Vulkan score recorded, likely due to its older driver support and lack of Vulkan API compatibility. This gives the GTX 950M an additional data point, but it is not a direct head-to-head comparison.

Looking at the percentiles, the Tesla C2070 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 950M sits at the 42nd percentile. This is interesting: despite the GTX 950M winning the OpenCL comparison, its average benchmark score is lower because the Vulkan score drags down its overall average. The Tesla C2070 has a single benchmark score, so its average equals its OpenCL score of 9,716. The GTX 950M averages 8,135 across its two tests, which places it lower in the overall distribution.

When comparing against their nearest rivals, the Tesla C2070 is essentially tied with the Tesla M10, which scores 9,724 (a 0.1% difference), and slightly ahead of the Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (0.5% ahead) and the Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653 (0.7% ahead). The GeForce GTX 1070 scores 9,780, putting the Tesla C2070 0.7% behind. These are all extremely tight margins, indicating that the Tesla C2070 is competitive with much newer hardware in this specific compute test.

The GTX 950M, on the other hand, has nearest rivals with much lower average scores due to the Vulkan benchmark inclusion. The Radeon R9 M360 averages 8,129 (0.1% ahead), the GTX 980 averages 8,167 (0.4% behind), the GeForce 945M averages 8,099 (0.4% ahead), and the GRID K2 averages 8,080 (0.7% ahead). The GTX 950M's average is 8,135, placing it in the middle of this pack.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The GeForce GTX 950M edges out the Tesla C2070 by 0.3% in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 9,745 versus 9,716. This is a negligible difference in real-world terms.

Q: Does the Tesla C2070 support Vulkan?

A: No, the database lists no Vulkan API support for the Tesla C2070. The GTX 950M supports Vulkan 1.4, which is reflected in its additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 6,525.

Q: How do these cards compare in terms of their overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Tesla C2070 ranks at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 950M ranks at the 42nd percentile. The GTX 950M's lower percentile is due to its Vulkan score being significantly lower than its OpenCL score, pulling down its average.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: For the Tesla C2070, the nearest rivals are the Tesla M10 (0.1% difference), Quadro P4000 (0.5% ahead), Radeon Pro WX 2100 (0.7% ahead), and GeForce GTX 1070 (0.7% behind). For the GTX 950M, the nearest rivals are the Radeon R9 M360 (0.1% ahead), GTX 980 (0.4% behind), GeForce 945M (0.4% ahead), and GRID K2 (0.7% ahead).

Q: Which card has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla C2070 has a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 950M has a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s. The Tesla C2070 has over five times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Is there a significant difference in power consumption?

A: Yes, the Tesla C2070 is rated at 238 W TDP and requires a 550 W power supply with dual power connectors, while the GTX 950M is rated at 75 W TDP and has no power connectors, being an integrated-style mobile GPU.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 950M wins in the only direct benchmark comparison, the OpenCL test, by a razor-thin 0.3% margin. It also offers Vulkan support, which the Tesla C2070 lacks entirely. This makes the GTX 950M a better choice for any workload that utilizes the Vulkan API, and it gives it a more modern feature set overall.

The Tesla C2070 wins decisively in memory performance. Its 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth dwarfs the GTX 950M's 28.80 GB/s, and its 384-bit bus width is three times wider. This matters for any compute task that is memory-bound, such as large matrix operations, data processing, or scientific simulations. The Tesla C2070 also has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the GTX 950M's 4 GB of DDR3, giving it more capacity and faster memory technology.

In terms of raw texture and pixel throughput, the Tesla C2070 has a higher pixel rate at 16.07 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s for the GTX 950M, but the GTX 950M actually wins in pixel rate by about 12%. However, the Tesla C2070 has a texture rate of 32.14 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s for the GTX 950M, meaning the GTX 950M is about 40% faster in texture fill. These differences are minor compared to the massive memory bandwidth advantage of the Tesla C2070.

The GTX 950M has higher FP32 compute at 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Tesla C2070, a 40% advantage. This is significant for general-purpose compute workloads that are not memory-bound. The GTX 950M also has more shading units (640 versus 448), though the Tesla C2070 has more TMUs (56 versus 40) and ROPs (48 versus 16).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The Tesla C2070 uses a 40 nm process with a die size of 529 mm² and 3,100 million transistors, while the GTX 950M uses a 28 nm process with a die size of 148 mm² and 1,870 million transistors. The GTX 950M has a much higher transistor density at 12.6M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm² for the Tesla C2070.

Memory is a major differentiator: the Tesla C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 950M has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla C2070's memory clock is 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the GTX 950M's is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The GTX 950M has clock speeds listed: 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. The Tesla C2070 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. The GTX 950M supports PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Tesla C2070 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The Tesla C2070 is dual-slot with a 248 mm length, while the GTX 950M is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no dimensions listed.

The Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W and requires a 550 W power supply with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The GTX 950M has a TDP of 75 W and no power connectors. The Tesla C2070 has a single DVI display output, while the GTX 950M uses portable device dependent outputs.

Architecture Differences

The Tesla C2070 is built on the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, while the GTX 950M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. Fermi was NVIDIA's first generation to support compute features like ECC and error correction, designed for professional and scientific workloads. Maxwell, on the other hand, was optimized for power efficiency and gaming performance.

The Tesla C2070 belongs to the Tesla Fermi generation (x20xx series) and was released in 2011. The GTX 950M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation and was released in 2015. The Tesla C2070's predecessor is Tesla, and its successor is Tesla Kepler. The GTX 950M's predecessor is GeForce 800M, and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

In terms of compute resources, the Tesla C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 950M has more shading units but far fewer ROPs. The Tesla C2070 has a pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 32.14 GTexel/s, while the GTX 950M has a pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the GTX 950M supports Vulkan (version 1.4). Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Tesla C2070 has no FP16 capability listed, and neither does the GTX 950M, so both are limited to FP32 compute.

The Tesla C2070's massive die size of 529 mm² and 3,100 million transistors reflect its compute-focused design, while the GTX 950M's smaller 148 mm² die and 1,870 million transistors reflect a more integrated, mobile-oriented approach. The GTX 950M's higher transistor density (12.6M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm²) shows how much process technology improved between 2011 and 2015.

The Verdict

The data shows two very different cards that happen to land at nearly the same point in raw OpenCL performance. The GeForce GTX 950M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, but by a margin so small (0.3%) that it is effectively a tie. The GTX 950M also brings Vulkan support, higher FP32 throughput (1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS), and dramatically lower power consumption (75 W versus 238 W).

The Tesla C2070, however, holds a commanding lead in memory bandwidth (143.4 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s) and memory capacity (6 GB versus 4 GB). For compute workloads that stress memory bandwidth, such as large data sets or scientific simulations, the Tesla C2070's wider 384-bit bus and GDDR5 memory give it a clear advantage that the GTX 950M cannot overcome.

Choose the GTX 950M if you need a low-power, modern GPU with Vulkan support and higher raw FP32 compute. It is better suited for general-purpose compute tasks that fit within its 4 GB memory and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. Choose the Tesla C2070 if your workload is memory-intensive and you can accommodate its 238 W power draw and dual-slot form factor. Its 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth is a massive advantage for certain scientific and data-processing tasks.

For gaming or consumer use, the GTX 950M is the obvious pick due to its modern architecture and mobile-friendly design. The Tesla C2070 is a legacy compute card from 2011 with end-of-life status, while the GTX 950M, though also end-of-life, is from 2015 and has a more current feature set. The Tesla C2070's percentile ranking of 47% versus the GTX 950M's 42% is the only metric where the older card leads, but this is skewed by the GTX 950M's additional Vulkan score.

In the end, the GTX 950M is the more versatile card for most users, while the Tesla C2070 is a specialized tool for specific memory-bound compute workloads. The benchmark results show that modern efficiency can match older compute power, but cannot replicate the bandwidth of a dedicated compute card.