NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA Tesla M10 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla M10 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 are both Maxwell-era GPUs, but they serve entirely different purposes. The Tesla M10 is a datacenter-focused compute card, while the GTX 960 is a consumer gaming graphics card. Benchmark data shows a clear performance gap in general compute workloads, but the architectural and feature differences reveal a more nuanced picture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M10 has a higher average benchmark score of 9724, compared to the GTX 960's 9273. The Tesla M10 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960 is at the 45th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 960 wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 18925 against the Tesla M10's 10318. This represents a 45.5% advantage for the GTX 960, making it the clear winner in this workload.

Q: Is the Vulkan performance difference significant?

A: No, it is minimal. The GTX 960 scores 9231 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Tesla M10 scores 9130. The delta is only 1.1% in favor of the GTX 960, making the two cards effectively equivalent in this test.

Q: Which card has more memory and what type?

A: The Tesla M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 960 has 2 GB of GDDR5. Despite having less capacity, the GTX 960 has a higher memory bandwidth of 112.2 GB/s compared to the Tesla M10's 83.20 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Tesla M10 has a TDP of 225 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The GTX 960 is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which card supports a higher DirectX version?

A: The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Tesla M10 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The GTX 960 has a more modern feature set for gaming and graphics workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on different versions of the same architecture. The Tesla M10 uses the GM107 chip with the original Maxwell architecture, while the GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip with Maxwell 2.0. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ substantially: the Tesla M10 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the GTX 960 packs 2,940 million transistors onto a 228 mm² die. This gives the GTX 960 a higher transistor density of 12.9M per mm² versus 12.6M for the Tesla M10.

The compute configurations reveal different design priorities. The Tesla M10 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 960, by contrast, has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the GTX 960 has 60% more shading units and double the TMUs and ROPs, which directly impacts its pixel and texture throughput. The pixel rate is 37.70 GPixel/s for the GTX 960 versus 20.90 GPixel/s for the Tesla M10, and the texture rate is 75.39 GTexel/s versus 52.24 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds also differ. The Tesla M10 has a base clock of 1033 MHz and a boost clock of 1306 MHz, while the GTX 960 runs at 1127 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost. The Tesla M10's higher boost clock is notable, but the GTX 960's superior shader count gives it a decisive edge in raw FP32 throughput: 2.413 TFLOPS versus 1.672 TFLOPS. Neither card includes RT cores or tensor cores, and both lack FP16 support. The memory subsystems use the same 128-bit bus width, but the GTX 960's memory runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) compared to the Tesla M10's 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), resulting in the bandwidth advantage noted earlier.

Feature-wise, the GTX 960 offers display outputs including 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Tesla M10 has no display outputs at all, reinforcing its server-centric role. The GTX 960 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the Tesla M10 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a lopsided victory for the GTX 960, but the margin varies dramatically by workload. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 960 scores 18925 against the Tesla M10's 10318. That is a 45.5% difference — a massive gap that reflects the GTX 960's higher shader count and memory bandwidth. The Tesla M10, despite its larger frame buffer, cannot overcome the GTX 960's computational superiority in this test.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a different story. Here, the GTX 960 scores 9231 and the Tesla M10 scores 9130, a difference of just 1.1%. This near-tie suggests that the Tesla M10's higher boost clock of 1306 MHz and its 8 GB memory capacity help it keep pace in Vulkan workloads, even though it has fewer shading units and lower fill rates. The delta is small enough to be within run-to-run variance, meaning the two cards are effectively equal in this specific test.

Overall, the GTX 960 wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks. The OpenCL result is a decisive win, while the Vulkan result is a marginal one. The Tesla M10's average benchmark score of 9724 is higher than the GTX 960's 9273, but that average is skewed by the Tesla M10's small benchmark sample — it only has two Geekbench entries, while the GTX 960 includes additional tests like 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (scoring 162) and Geekbench Metal (scoring 8773). The head-to-head shows the GTX 960 is the stronger performer in compute tasks that leverage its architecture.

Looking at nearest rivals, the Tesla M10's average score of 9724 places it just 0.1% above the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9716) and 0.6% above the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9665). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 by 0.6% (9780). The GTX 960's 9273 average is 0.2% below the GeForce GTX 465 (9294) and 0.3% below the GTX 850M (9302), while sitting 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9221). These comparisons show both cards are mid-pack performers in their respective GPU tiers.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. For anyone needing general compute performance — OpenCL or Vulkan workloads — the GTX 960 is the better choice. It delivers a 45.5% advantage in OpenCL and a 1.1% edge in Vulkan, making it the stronger card in every head-to-head test. Its 2.413 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, 112.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 1,024 shading units give it a fundamental architectural advantage over the Tesla M10's 640 shading units and 83.20 GB/s bandwidth.

The Tesla M10, however, is not without merit. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory is four times the GTX 960's 2 GB, which matters for workloads that require large datasets in memory. Its higher boost clock of 1306 MHz helps it nearly match the GTX 960 in Vulkan, and its average benchmark score of 9724 is actually higher than the GTX 960's 9273. For server deployments where memory capacity is critical and compute performance is secondary, the Tesla M10's dual-slot design and 225 W TDP are acceptable trade-offs.

Power efficiency strongly favors the GTX 960. It draws 120 W with a 300 W suggested PSU, compared to the Tesla M10's 225 W and 550 W PSU requirement. The GTX 960 also has a smaller footprint at 241 mm versus 267 mm for the Tesla M10. Both cards are end-of-life, but the GTX 960's consumer features — display outputs, DirectX 12 (12_1) support, and a launch MSRP of 199 USD — make it the more versatile option.

The verdict is straightforward: the GTX 960 wins on compute performance, efficiency, and features. The Tesla M10 wins on memory capacity and has a slightly higher average benchmark score, but that advantage does not translate into a single head-to-head victory. Users needing max memory should consider the Tesla M10; everyone else should pick the GTX 960.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla M10 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM107 | GM206 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Tesla Maxwell (Mxx) | GeForce 900 |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 2,940 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 228 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1033 MHz | 1127 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1306 MHz | 1178 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz / 5.2 Gbps effective | 1753 MHz / 7 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.20 GB/s | 112.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 40 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.90 GPixel/s | 37.70 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.24 GTexel/s | 75.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.672 TFLOPS | 2.413 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 225 W | 120 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | 267 mm / 10.5 inches | 241 mm / 9.5 inches |

| Release Date | 2016-05-17 | 2015-01-21 |