NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 over the NVIDIA Tesla C2070, with the consumer card posting nearly double the compute score in the available head-to-head test. This result underscores a generational leap in efficiency and raw throughput, even as the Tesla C2070 retains a niche position due to its professional heritage and larger memory pool.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is not close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 scores 18,925 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 manages 9,716 points. This represents a 48.7% delta in favor of the GTX 960, meaning the GTX 960 delivers roughly 95% more compute performance in this workload. The margin is significant enough to render the Tesla C2070 non-competitive in any OpenCL-centric task, from general compute to rendering acceleration.

Looking at the broader context, the Tesla C2070’s average benchmark score of 9,716 places it at the 47th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665, delta 0.5%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653, delta 0.7%). These are all extremely close scores, indicating that the C2070 sits in a tightly packed performance band where a 0.7% difference separates it from competitors. The GTX 960, by contrast, has an average score of 9,273, which is actually lower than the C2070’s average—yet its single OpenCL result of 18,925 is far higher. This discrepancy suggests the GTX 960’s average is dragged down by other benchmarks not shared with the C2070.

The GTX 960’s nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average of 9,273 places it at the 45th percentile, just below the C2070’s 47th. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9,294, delta -0.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9,302, delta -0.3%) are its closest competitors, while the AMD Radeon Vega 8 trails by a 0.6% margin. This means that in aggregate, the two GPUs are statistically indistinguishable in average performance, but the GTX 960’s peak OpenCL showing is in a different league entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960 wins the only direct compute benchmark, and it does so by a wide margin. Its OpenCL score of 18,925 is more than double the C2070’s 9,716, making it the clear choice for any application that leverages OpenCL acceleration—including video encoding, physics simulation, and many scientific workloads. The GTX 960 also shows broader API support, with Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) listed, whereas the C2070 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacks Vulkan entirely. This makes the GTX 960 more future-proof for modern software that can tap into newer graphics APIs.

The Tesla C2070, however, wins on memory capacity and interface breadth in a different sense. It offers 6 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the GTX 960’s 2 GB, which is a three-fold advantage. For workloads that require large datasets to reside in video memory—such as certain data processing, deep learning inference, or rendering scenes with massive texture sets—the C2070’s larger frame buffer is a practical advantage, even if its raw compute speed is slower. The C2070 also has a wider 384-bit memory bus, yielding a bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s compared to the GTX 960’s 112.2 GB/s. This means the C2070 can move data more efficiently per clock, which can mitigate some of its compute deficit in memory-bound tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by two architectural generations. The Tesla C2070 is built on the Fermi architecture (chip GF100) using a 40 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 960 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture (chip GM206) on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This process shrink from 40 nm to 28 nm is fundamental: it allows the GTX 960 to pack 2,940 million transistors into a 228 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.9M per mm². The C2070, by contrast, has 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, resulting in just 5.9M per mm². The GTX 960 is more than twice as dense, which explains how it achieves higher performance with fewer total transistors.

The core configurations differ starkly. The C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 960’s shading unit count is more than double, which directly fuels its FP32 throughput of 2.413 TFLOPS, versus the C2070’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS. However, the C2070’s higher ROP count and wider memory bus give it a pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s, while the GTX 960 achieves 37.70 GPixel/s—a clear win for the newer card despite fewer ROPs, thanks to higher clocks. The texture rate also favors the GTX 960: 75.39 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s.

The GTX 960 introduces boost clocks, with a base of 1127 MHz and boost of 1178 MHz, whereas the C2070 has no listed boost clock, indicating a fixed clock design. Memory clocks also differ, with the GTX 960 running at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus the C2070’s 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). Neither GPU has RT cores or Tensor cores, and both lack FP16 support, so there is no ray tracing or AI acceleration on either.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is memory capacity: the C2070 has 6 GB, while the GTX 960 has 2 GB. This is accompanied by a bus width difference of 384-bit versus 128-bit, and bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s versus 112.2 GB/s. The GTX 960 has a higher base clock (1127 MHz vs. none listed for the C2070) and boost clock (1178 MHz), plus a faster memory clock (1753 MHz vs. 747 MHz).

Power consumption is a major divider. The C2070 has a TDP of 238 W, requiring a 550 W PSU and dual power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin). The GTX 960 is far more efficient at 120 W, needing only a 300 W PSU and a single 6-pin connector. The GTX 960 also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the C2070 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs favor the GTX 960 with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, versus the C2070’s single DVI port. The GTX 960 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the C2070 supports only DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 (both share OpenGL 4.6).

The GTX 960 was released on 2015-01-21, while the C2070 came earlier on 2011-07-24. Both are end-of-life. The GTX 960 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD. The C2070 has no listed launch MSRP. Physical dimensions are similar: the C2070 is 248 mm (9.8 inches) long, and the GTX 960 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long; both are dual-slot.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 scores 18,925 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716, making the GTX 960 48.7% faster in this test.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Tesla C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GeForce GTX 960 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla C2070 has a bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s, thanks to its 384-bit bus, compared to the GTX 960’s 112.2 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W, whereas the GeForce GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 W, making the GTX 960 significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the GeForce GTX 960 supports Vulkan, with version 1.4 listed. The Tesla C2070 has no Vulkan support.

Q: What are their average benchmark scores and percentiles?

A: The Tesla C2070 has an average benchmark score of 9,716 (47th percentile), while the GeForce GTX 960 has an average of 9,273 (45th percentile).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for compute workloads: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is the superior performer. Its OpenCL score of 18,925 versus 9,716 is a 95% improvement, and it achieves this with half the TDP (120 W vs. 238 W), a smaller die, and a lower power connector requirement. The GTX 960 also offers modern API support including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), which the C2070 lacks. For any user running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the GTX 960 is the clear choice.

However, the Tesla C2070 has a single compelling advantage: memory. Its 6 GB frame buffer is three times larger than the GTX 960’s 2 GB, and its 143.4 GB/s bandwidth is 28% higher. For workloads that are memory-capacity bound—such as holding large datasets in VRAM—the C2070 can fit more data, even if it processes it more slowly. Its 47th percentile ranking versus the GTX 960’s 45th also indicates slightly better aggregate performance across all tested benchmarks, though the margin is negligible.

In practical terms, the GTX 960 is the better all-around card for gaming and general compute, given its massive OpenCL lead, lower power draw, and modern feature set. The C2070 remains viable only for specialized tasks where 6 GB of memory is a hard requirement. The GTX 960’s launch MSRP of 199 USD further cements its position as the more accessible option. If you need raw compute speed and efficiency, pick the GTX 960. If you need maximum memory capacity and are willing to accept slower performance and higher power consumption, the C2070 has a role. The benchmark results, however, favor the GTX 960 without qualification.