NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. The GTX 960A wins this head-to-head by 15.4%.

Q: How do these two cards compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla offers three times the capacity and nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 960A has a 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for MXM modules. The Tesla C2075 has a 247 W TDP, needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector, and requires a 550 W suggested power supply.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient per unit of performance?

A: The GTX 960A delivers 1.505 TFLOPS of FP32 compute at 75 W, while the Tesla C2075 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS at 247 W. The GTX 960A produces more compute with far lower power draw, indicating significantly better efficiency.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The GTX 960A is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, designed for portable devices. The Tesla C2075 is a dual-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 248 mm (9.8 inches) in length with a single DVI output.

Q: Which card has a newer production process?

A: The GTX 960A uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Tesla C2075 uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The GTX 960A's smaller node allows for a much higher transistor density of 12.6M per mm² compared to 5.8M per mm² on the Tesla.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits these two cards into clearly different roles. The GTX 960A wins the only recorded benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a substantial 15.4% margin (11,998 vs 10,400). This makes it the stronger choice for general compute workloads that rely on OpenCL performance, particularly given its much lower power envelope.

The Tesla C2075 wins in memory-related scenarios. Its 6 GB frame buffer versus 2 GB on the GTX 960A means it can hold larger datasets without spilling to system memory. The 384-bit memory bus and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth give it a 87% bandwidth advantage over the GTX 960A's 80.19 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as large matrix operations or data processing that exceeds 2 GB, the Tesla's memory subsystem is the deciding factor.

The GTX 960A also wins on architectural efficiency. It achieves a higher pixel rate (18.82 GPixel/s vs 16.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (47.04 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s) despite having fewer TMUs (40 vs 56) and fewer ROPs (16 vs 48). This indicates the Maxwell architecture extracts more throughput per unit of hardware than the older Fermi design.

The Tesla C2075 wins on raw memory capacity and bandwidth, which are critical for certain scientific and professional compute workloads. It also supports a wider memory bus, which can be advantageous for workloads that access memory in large contiguous blocks.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 960A is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The GPU has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs.

The Tesla C2075 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF110 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This older process produces a much larger die at 520 mm² with 3,000 million transistors, but the density drops to just 5.8M per mm². The Tesla has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs.

The core configuration differs significantly. The GTX 960A has more shaders (640 vs 448) but fewer TMUs (40 vs 56) and fewer ROPs (16 vs 48). This reflects the different design philosophies: Maxwell focuses on high per-clock efficiency with a simpler memory pipeline, while Fermi 2.0 uses a wider memory interface and more rasterization hardware.

Neither card supports ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support listed.

The GTX 960A belongs to the GeForce 900A generation and succeeds the GeForce 800A, while the Tesla C2075 is part of the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation, succeeds the original Tesla, and is itself succeeded by Tesla Kepler.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GTX 960A | Tesla C2075 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,000 million |

| Die size | 148 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.6M / mm² | 5.8M / mm² |

| Memory size | 2 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |

| Shading units | 640 | 448 |

| TMUs | 40 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel rate | 18.82 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 47.04 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 compute | 1.505 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 247 W |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 550 W |

| Bus interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable device dependent | 1x DVI |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | None |

| Slot width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Length | Not specified | 248 mm (9.8 inches) |

The clock structures also differ. The GTX 960A has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz, with memory clocked at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Tesla C2075 has no base or boost clock listed, with memory clocked at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the GTX 960A. The GTX 960A scores 11,998 against the Tesla C2075's 10,400, a 15.4% advantage. This is a meaningful gap that places the GTX 960A in a higher performance class, sitting at the 51st percentile of all GPUs compared to the Tesla's 48th percentile.

The GTX 960A's nearest rivals help contextualize its score. It sits just 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (11,960), 1.3% above the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842), and 2.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680). This places the GTX 960A in surprisingly competitive company, performing within 3.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627).

The Tesla C2075's nearest rivals show a different competitive landscape. It sits 0.4% above the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362), 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273), but 0.8% below the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481) and 1.7% below the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582). The Tesla is effectively at parity with these mid-range mobile and entry-level desktop parts.

In raw compute throughput, the GTX 960A's 1.505 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is substantially higher than the Tesla C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, a 46% advantage. This aligns with the OpenCL benchmark results. The GTX 960A also produces higher pixel throughput (18.82 GPixel/s vs 16.07 GPixel/s) despite having fewer ROPs, and higher texture throughput (47.04 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s) despite having fewer TMUs.

The Tesla C2075 fights back only in memory bandwidth, where its 150.3 GB/s is nearly double the GTX 960A's 80.19 GB/s, and in memory capacity, where 6 GB dwarfs 2 GB.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the GTX 960A is the faster card. Its 15.4% OpenCL lead, higher FP32 compute, better pixel and texture rates, and dramatically lower power draw (75 W vs 247 W) make it the superior choice for compute workloads that fit within 2 GB of memory.

The GTX 960A's 51st percentile ranking places it ahead of half of all GPUs in the database, and its scores are competitive with cards like the GTX 1080 and RX 6500 XT. For anyone running OpenCL compute tasks that do not exceed 2 GB, the GTX 960A is clearly the better performer.

The Tesla C2075's case rests entirely on memory. Its 6 GB capacity and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth make it the only option here for workloads that need to hold more than 2 GB of data on the GPU. Scientific simulations, large batch processing, or rendering tasks with big textures could benefit from the Tesla's memory subsystem despite its slower compute.

The Tesla also offers a standard PCIe 2.0 x16 interface with a dual-slot form factor and a DVI output, making it easier to install in a desktop workstation. The GTX 960A's MXM form factor restricts it to laptops and portable devices, which may limit its practical use.

The broader context favors the GTX 960A. It is newer (released in 2015 versus 2011), built on a more advanced process, and achieves higher performance at a fraction of the power. The Tesla C2075's 247 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU requirement make it a demanding component for any system.

Buyers should choose the GTX 960A for general compute performance, efficiency, and OpenCL workloads under 2 GB. The Tesla C2075 should only be chosen when the 6 GB memory capacity or 150.3 GB/s bandwidth is an absolute requirement, since its compute performance trails by a significant margin and its power demands are much higher. The data shows a clear generational improvement that the Tesla's memory advantages cannot fully offset.