NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA Tesla K10 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Tesla K10 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A represent two distinct design philosophies from the same manufacturer, and the benchmark data clearly separates them. In the single recorded OpenCL test, the Tesla K10 scores 14,029 points, which is 16.9% ahead of the GTX 960A's 11,998 points. The Tesla K10 also holds a higher overall percentile ranking at 55% of all GPUs, compared to the GTX 960A's 51% percentile.

For compute-heavy workloads, the Tesla K10 is the clear choice. Its 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, combined with 1,536 shading units and a 256-bit memory bus delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, makes it a more capable processing engine. The GTX 960A, with 1.505 TFLOPS, 640 shading units, and a 128-bit bus at 80.19 GB/s, trails substantially in raw throughput.

However, the GTX 960A is not without merit. Its 75 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Tesla K10's 225 W, and it comes in an MXM module form factor with no external power connectors. This makes it suitable for portable or space-constrained systems where power and thermal limits are strict. The Tesla K10, by contrast, is a dual-slot card requiring both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, along with a 550 W suggested power supply.

The data indicates that the Tesla K10 wins on absolute performance and is the pick for anyone running OpenCL compute tasks where power draw is not a limiting factor. The GTX 960A is the pick for embedded or mobile deployments where its low power envelope and compact MXM form factor are decisive advantages, despite its lower benchmark score.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K10 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database: the Geekbench OpenCL test. Its score of 14,029 beats the GTX 960A's 11,998 by 16.9%. This performance gap aligns with the hardware specifications. The K10 has more than double the shading units (1,536 vs. 640), more texture mapping units (128 vs. 40), and double the ROPs (32 vs. 16). Its memory bandwidth is exactly double that of the GTX 960A: 160.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. In FP32 compute, the K10 delivers 2.289 TFLOPS against the 960A's 1.505 TFLOPS, a 52% advantage.

The GTX 960A wins in efficiency and form factor. Its 75 W TDP is one-third of the Tesla K10's 225 W. It requires no power connectors, while the K10 demands a 6-pin and an 8-pin. The GTX 960A is an MXM module, which means it is designed for laptop or modular systems, whereas the Tesla K10 is a 272 mm long, dual-slot card with no display outputs. The GTX 960A also has a higher transistor density at 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter, versus the K10's 12.0 million, indicating a more compact design on its 148 mm² die compared to the K10's 294 mm².

For compute density per watt, the GTX 960A is superior. It produces 1.505 TFLOPS within 75 W, while the Tesla K10 produces 2.289 TFLOPS within 225 W. The GTX 960A achieves 20.07 GFLOPS per watt, and the K10 achieves 10.17 GFLOPS per watt. This makes the GTX 960A more than twice as efficient in raw FP32 per watt, a significant factor for thermally constrained environments.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The Tesla K10 is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, while the GTX 960A uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ notably: the K10 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GTX 960A has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

The memory subsystems are markedly different. The Tesla K10 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s. The K10's memory clock is rated at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the GTX 960A runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), so the raw memory clock is nearly identical; the bandwidth difference comes entirely from the wider bus.

Clock behavior also differs. The GTX 960A has explicit base and boost clocks of 1097 MHz and 1176 MHz, respectively. The Tesla K10 has no listed base or boost clocks in the database, which suggests it may operate at a fixed clock for compute stability. The GTX 960A's pixel rate is 18.82 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 47.04 GTexel/s, while the Tesla K10 achieves 23.84 GPixel/s and 95.36 GTexel/s, respectively.

API support is similar for DirectX (both 12 with 11_0 feature level) and OpenGL (both 4.6). The Vulkan support differs: the GTX 960A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla K10 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The physical designs are completely different. The Tesla K10 is a dual-slot, 272 mm long card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, a suggested PSU of 550 W, and no display outputs. The GTX 960A is an MXM module with no power connectors, no suggested PSU listed, and display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The Tesla K10 belongs to the Tesla Kepler generation (Kxx), while the GTX 960A belongs to the GeForce 900A generation.

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K10 scores 14,029 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 16.9% higher than the GTX 960A's 11,998. The K10 also has higher FP32 throughput at 2.289 TFLOPS versus 1.505 TFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?

A: The GTX 960A draws 75 W versus the Tesla K10's 225 W. For FP32 performance per watt, the GTX 960A delivers roughly 20 GFLOPS per watt, while the Tesla K10 delivers about 10 GFLOPS per watt, making the GTX 960A more than twice as efficient.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The Tesla K10 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The K10's bandwidth is exactly double.

Q: Which GPU supports newer software features?

A: The GTX 960A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla K10 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Q: Which GPU is easier to install in a standard desktop?

A: The Tesla K10 is a dual-slot card measuring 272 mm in length and requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector plus a 550 W suggested PSU. The GTX 960A is an MXM module with no power connectors, but it is designed for portable or modular systems, not standard desktop slots.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Tesla K10's closest rival is the GTX 680, which scores 14,150, just 0.9% higher. The GTX 960A's closest rival is the GTX 1080, scoring 11,960, only 0.3% lower. The GTX 960A's nearest rivals also include the RX 6500 XT at 11,842 (1.3% higher) and the GTX 1660 at 11,680 (2.7% higher).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The Tesla K10 achieves a score of 14,029, while the GTX 960A achieves 11,998, resulting in a 16.9% victory for the K10. This is the only direct comparison available, and it favors the K10 decisively.

Looking at the underlying specifications, the K10's win is explained by its superior compute resources. The K10 has 1,536 shading units versus the GTX 960A's 640, a 2.4x difference. Its 128 texture mapping units compare to the GTX 960A's 40, a 3.2x difference. The ROP count is 32 versus 16, a 2x difference. The K10's texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s is more than double the GTX 960A's 47.04 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 23.84 GPixel/s exceeds the 18.82 GPixel/s of the GTX 960A.

Memory bandwidth is a major separator. The K10's 160.0 GB/s is exactly twice the GTX 960A's 80.19 GB/s, which directly impacts memory-bound workloads such as large OpenCL buffers. The K10's 4 GB capacity also allows larger datasets to reside on-card compared to the GTX 960A's 2 GB.

The GTX 960A's nearest rival comparisons are instructive. It sits 0.3% above the GTX 1080 (11,998 vs. 11,960), 1.3% above the RX 6500 XT (11,998 vs. 11,842), 2.7% above the GTX 1660 (11,998 vs. 11,680), and 3.2% above the RX 7800 XT (11,998 vs. 11,627). These deltas show that the GTX 960A, despite its modest specifications, performs competitively against much newer and larger GPUs in this particular OpenCL workload.

The Tesla K10's rival comparisons show a different pattern. It is 0.9% below the GTX 680 (14,029 vs. 14,150), 1.1% above the RX 570X (14,029 vs. 13,871), 1.5% above the RTX A2000 Mobile (14,029 vs. 13,821), and 1.6% above the Radeon 660M (14,029 vs. 13,812). The K10's score clusters tightly within a 2.5% band of its rivals, indicating that its absolute performance level is well characterized by the database.

In terms of production timeline, the Tesla K10 was released in 2012 and is end-of-life, with a successor in Tesla Maxwell. The GTX 960A was released in 2015 and is also end-of-life, with its predecessor being GeForce 800A and no successor listed. The K10 had a launch MSRP of 5,099 USD, while the GTX 960A has no recorded launch MSRP.

The transistor density figures are close: the K10 has 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter, and the GTX 960A has 12.6 million, a 5% difference. This suggests both are from the same 28 nm TSMC process generation, but the GTX 960A achieves a slightly tighter packing.

For compute workloads, the K10's 2.289 TFLOPS FP32 output is the higher peak, but the GTX 960A's efficiency advantage cannot be overstated. In systems where a 225 W power draw is unacceptable, the GTX 960A's 75 W envelope makes it the only viable choice of the two. Conversely, in a server or workstation with adequate power delivery, the K10's 16.9% higher OpenCL score and doubled memory bandwidth make it the stronger performer.

The data shows a clean split: the Tesla K10 wins on absolute compute and memory throughput; the GTX 960A wins on power efficiency and form factor flexibility. Neither GPU is a comprehensive victor, and the choice hinges entirely on the deployment environment.