NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The GeForce GTX 960 scores 18,925 points, while the Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 points. That is a delta of 45%, meaning the GTX 960 outperforms the Tesla C2075 by nearly half in this compute workload. The margin is substantial, and it underscores how far GPU architecture advanced in the years separating these two designs.

Looking at the broader database context, the Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 10,400. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10,362 (0.4% behind the Tesla) and the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481 (0.8% ahead). The GeForce GTX 950A trails by 1.2%, and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X leads by 1.7%. These are tight margins, indicating the Tesla C2075 is clustered with mid-range mobile and older desktop parts in raw compute performance.

The GTX 960, by contrast, holds a 45th percentile ranking with an average score of 9,273. That average is pulled down by its other benchmark entries: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 162, a Geekbench Metal score of 8,773, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,231. Its nearest rivals are all within a fraction of a percent: the GTX 465 at 9,294 (0.2% ahead), the GTX 850M at 9,302 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon R7 M380 at 9,313 (0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 at 9,221 (0.6% behind). The Vulkan score of 9,231 is notably close to the average, suggesting consistent performance across different API workloads.

The curious detail here is the discrepancy between the GTX 960's OpenCL score and its average. The OpenCL result of 18,925 is more than double its Vulkan score and far above its average, which means the GTX 960 excels specifically in OpenCL compute tasks. The Tesla C2075, with only one benchmark recorded, shows no such variability; its single OpenCL score of 10,400 is its entire profile.

What does this mean for the head-to-head? In the one test where both cards were measured under identical conditions, the GTX 960 wins by a wide margin. The Tesla's 448 shading units and 1,027.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute are simply outclassed by the GTX 960's 1,024 shading units and 2.413 TFLOPS. The architecture gap is the story here: Fermi versus Maxwell, with the latter delivering nearly 2.4 times the raw floating-point throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The GeForce GTX 960 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 18,925 against the Tesla C2075's 10,400, a 45% advantage.

Q: How does the Tesla C2075 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Tesla C2075 is within 1.7% of all four listed rivals. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X is 1.7% faster, the AMD Radeon RX 550X is 0.8% faster, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M is 0.4% slower, and the GeForce GTX 950A is 1.2% slower.

Q: What is the GTX 960's strongest benchmark result?

A: Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,925 is by far its highest recorded result, exceeding its Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,231 and its Geekbench Metal score of 8,773.

Q: Why is the GTX 960's average benchmark score lower than its OpenCL score?

A: The average of 9,273 includes multiple tests: the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 162, the Metal score of 8,773, and the Vulkan score of 9,231. The low DX12 result drags the average down despite the strong OpenCL showing.

Q: Do the two cards support the same APIs?

A: No. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support. The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each card?

A: The Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 960 sits at the 45th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general compute workloads: the GeForce GTX 960. Its 45% lead in the OpenCL benchmark is the only direct comparison available, and it aligns with the raw specification advantages in shading units, texture units, and clock speeds. The GTX 960 also offers broader API support, including Vulkan 1.4, which the Tesla C2075 lacks entirely.

However, the Tesla C2075 is not without its own strengths. It carries 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the GTX 960's 2 GB on a 128-bit bus at 112.2 GB/s. For memory-capacity-sensitive workloads, the Tesla holds a clear edge. Its 48th percentile ranking also places it slightly above the GTX 960's 45th percentile in the overall database distribution, though that ranking is based on different benchmark sets.

Who should pick which? A user prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL, modern API compatibility, and lower power draw should choose the GTX 960. Its 120 W TDP is less than half the Tesla's 247 W, and it requires only a 300 W power supply versus 550 W. A user needing large memory capacity or a wider memory bus for data-heavy tasks might prefer the Tesla C2075, provided they can tolerate its higher power requirements and lack of Vulkan support.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The Tesla C2075 uses a 40 nm process node, while the GTX 960 uses 28 nm. Transistor counts are close: 3,000 million for the Tesla versus 2,940 million for the GTX 960. Die size differs dramatically: 520 mm² for the Tesla versus 228 mm² for the GTX 960, giving the latter a transistor density of 12.9M per mm² compared to 5.8M per mm².

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The Tesla lists only a memory clock of 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), with no base or boost clock recorded. The GTX 960 has a base clock of 1127 MHz and a boost clock of 1178 MHz, with memory at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Memory configurations diverge: 6 GB versus 2 GB, 384-bit versus 128-bit bus, and 150.3 GB/s versus 112.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources favor the GTX 960 in shading units (1,024 versus 448) and texture units (64 versus 56), but the Tesla has more ROPs (48 versus 32). Pixel rate is 16.07 GPixel/s for the Tesla versus 37.70 GPixel/s for the GTX 960. Texture rate is 32.14 GTexel/s versus 75.39 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 2.413 TFLOPS.

Power and connectivity also differ. The Tesla draws 247 W with a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector setup and a 550 W suggested PSU. The GTX 960 draws 120 W with a single 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 960 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are minimal on the Tesla (1x DVI) versus the GTX 960's 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. Physical dimensions are close: 248 mm for the Tesla versus 241 mm for the GTX 960. The Tesla launched on 2011-07-24, while the GTX 960 launched on 2015-01-21. The GTX 960 has a recorded launch MSRP of 199 USD.

Architecture Differences

The Tesla C2075 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF110 chip, part of the Tesla Fermi generation. The GTX 960 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM206 chip, from the GeForce 900 generation. This architectural gap explains most of the performance difference. Fermi was designed for early compute acceleration, while Maxwell 2.0 focused on efficiency and higher clock speeds per watt.

Both chips are fabricated by TSMC, but at different nodes: 40 nm for Fermi versus 28 nm for Maxwell. The smaller node allows the GTX 960 to pack similar transistor counts into less than half the die area, enabling higher clocks and lower power consumption. The GTX 960's 2.413 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than double the Tesla's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, a direct result of architectural improvements and clock speed advantages.

API support reflects the generational leap. The Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vulkan support alone makes the GTX 960 compatible with modern graphics workloads that the Tesla cannot handle.

Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional rasterization and compute pipelines. The Tesla's larger memory capacity and wider bus suggest it was designed for data-parallel workloads where capacity outweighs throughput, while the GTX 960's higher pixel rate and texture rate indicate a focus on rendering performance.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960 wins decisively in raw compute throughput, as shown by the 45% OpenCL advantage. It also wins in pixel rate (37.70 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (75.39 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s). Its higher shading unit count and clock speeds make it the better choice for shader-heavy applications and modern API workloads. The Vulkan 1.4 support and higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0) extend its relevance to contemporary software.

The Tesla C2075 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth efficiency. Its 6 GB frame buffer is three times larger than the GTX 960's 2 GB, and its 384-bit bus provides 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 34% higher than the GTX 960's 112.2 GB/s. For workloads that store large datasets on the GPU, such as certain scientific or professional compute tasks, this capacity advantage matters. The Tesla also has more ROPs (48 versus 32), which can benefit certain fill-rate-bound scenarios, though its lower pixel rate suggests this advantage does not translate to practical rendering gains.

The power profile is a mixed bag. The GTX 960's 120 W TDP is a major efficiency win, requiring only a 300 W PSU. The Tesla's 247 W TDP and 550 W PSU recommendation make it a more demanding install. The GTX 960 also offers far more display outputs, making it the practical choice for multi-monitor setups.

In summary: the GTX 960 is the stronger all-around performer, particularly for compute and modern graphics. The Tesla C2075 remains relevant only for memory-capacity-focused tasks where its 6 GB frame buffer and wider bus provide a tangible benefit.