NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA Tesla M10 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores an average of 11998, placing it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Tesla M10 averages 9724, sitting in the 47th percentile.

Q: What is the performance gap between the two in the only shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 960A scores 11998 versus the Tesla M10's 10318, giving the GTX 960A a 16.3% advantage.

Q: Do both cards use the same underlying chip?

A: Yes, both are built on the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and does it affect bandwidth?

A: The GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s. The Tesla M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on the same bus width, achieving 83.20 GB/s, a modest bandwidth increase.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock and what does that imply for throughput rates?

A: The Tesla M10 boosts to 1306 MHz versus the GTX 960A's 1176 MHz. This translates to higher pixel and texture rates for the Tesla M10: 20.90 GPixel/s and 52.24 GTexel/s, compared to 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s for the GTX 960A.

Q: Are there any API differences between the two?

A: No, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: the GM107 chip under NVIDIA's Maxwell design, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 1,870 million, and the die size is the same at 148 mm², leading to a transistor density of 12.6M per mm² for each. The shading units (640), texture mapping units (40), and raster operations units (16) are also identical, meaning the core compute configuration is the same on paper.

The divergence appears in clock behavior and memory configuration. The GTX 960A has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost of 1176 MHz, while the Tesla M10 starts lower at 1033 MHz but boosts higher to 1306 MHz. This higher boost on the Tesla M10 directly boosts its pixel fill rate (20.90 GPixel/s vs 18.82 GPixel/s) and texture fill rate (52.24 GTexel/s vs 47.04 GTexel/s). The memory clocks differ slightly: the GTX 960A runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, while the Tesla M10 runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, which explains the bandwidth gap of 80.19 GB/s versus 83.20 GB/s.

The most significant architectural difference is memory capacity. The GTX 960A ships with 2 GB, while the Tesla M10 carries 8 GB. Given the same 128-bit bus width, the Tesla M10's larger frame buffer is not a speed advantage but a capacity one, enabling it to hold larger datasets or more textures without spilling to system memory. This is typical of a compute-oriented product versus a consumer mobile part.

Form factor and power delivery also separate them. The GTX 960A is an MXM module with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, designed for portable devices where display output is dependent on the host. The Tesla M10 is a dual-slot card, 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, requiring a single 8-pin power connector, a 225 W TDP, and a suggested 550 W power supply. It has no display outputs, reinforcing its role as an accelerator rather than a rendering card. The bus interface differs too: the GTX 960A uses MXM-B (3.0), while the Tesla M10 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The GTX 960A posts a score of 11998, while the Tesla M10 manages 10318. This yields a 16.3% victory for the GTX 960A, a substantial margin given that both cards share the same core counts and architecture.

What makes this result notable is the clock difference. The Tesla M10 has a higher boost clock (1306 MHz versus 1176 MHz) and higher theoretical FP32 throughput (1.672 TFLOPS versus 1.505 TFLOPS), yet it still loses by double digits. The data suggests that the GTX 960A's higher base clock (1097 MHz versus 1033 MHz) and possibly more consistent sustained clocks in the benchmark environment outweigh the Tesla M10's peak boost advantage. Another factor could be driver or workload characteristics: OpenCL performance on a consumer-oriented card like the GTX 960A may be better optimized than on a compute card like the Tesla M10, which is often deployed in virtualized or multi-tenant scenarios.

In terms of rival positioning, the GTX 960A sits just above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 in the database, with a 0.3% higher average score (11998 versus 11960). It also leads the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT by 1.3%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 by 2.7%, and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT by 3.2%. These are close margins, indicating that the GTX 960A's OpenCL performance is competitive with much newer and more powerful cards, despite its modest 75 W TDP and 2 GB memory.

The Tesla M10, by contrast, sits in a similar performance band but at the lower end. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 by 0.6%, while leading the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 by 0.1%, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 by 0.6%, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 by 0.7%. These deltas are all within 1%, meaning the Tesla M10 is essentially tied with its nearest rivals in the database, none of which approach the GTX 960A's score. The 16.3% gap between the two compared cards is far larger than any delta within their respective rival groups.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A and the NVIDIA Tesla M10:

• Base Clock: GTX 960A at 1097 MHz; Tesla M10 at 1033 MHz.
• Boost Clock: GTX 960A at 1176 MHz; Tesla M10 at 1306 MHz.
• Memory Clock: GTX 960A at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective); Tesla M10 at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: GTX 960A has 2 GB; Tesla M10 has 8 GB.
• Memory Bandwidth: GTX 960A at 80.19 GB/s; Tesla M10 at 83.20 GB/s.
• Pixel Rate: GTX 960A at 18.82 GPixel/s; Tesla M10 at 20.90 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: GTX 960A at 47.04 GTexel/s; Tesla M10 at 52.24 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Throughput: GTX 960A at 1.505 TFLOPS; Tesla M10 at 1.672 TFLOPS.
• TDP: GTX 960A at 75 W; Tesla M10 at 225 W.
• Slot Width: GTX 960A is an MXM Module; Tesla M10 is dual-slot.
• Power Connectors: GTX 960A has none; Tesla M10 has 1x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: GTX 960A has none listed; Tesla M10 lists 550 W.
• Bus Interface: GTX 960A uses MXM-B (3.0); Tesla M10 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: GTX 960A is portable-device dependent; Tesla M10 has no outputs.
• Dimensions: GTX 960A has no listed length; Tesla M10 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long.
• Release Date: GTX 960A on 2015-03-12; Tesla M10 on 2016-05-17.
• Predecessor: GTX 960A from GeForce 800A; Tesla M10 from Tesla Kepler.
• Successor: GTX 960A has none listed; Tesla M10 to Tesla Pascal.
• Generation: GTX 960A in GeForce 900A; Tesla M10 in Tesla Maxwell (Mxx).

The two cards share the same chip, architecture, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, transistor density, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and API support (DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4). Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins on raw OpenCL performance and efficiency. Its benchmark score of 11998 is 16.3% higher than the Tesla M10's 10318, despite having a lower TDP (75 W versus 225 W) and no auxiliary power connector. For any workload that is memory-latency sensitive or relies on sustained base-clock operation, the GTX 960A's 1097 MHz base clock appears to provide a steadier foundation than the Tesla M10's 1033 MHz. The GTX 960A also wins on portability: being an MXM module with no power connectors, it fits into mobile or compact chassis where the Tesla M10's dual-slot 267 mm length and 8-pin requirement would be impossible. Its 2 GB memory is sufficient for lighter rendering tasks, and its display outputs being portable-device dependent means it can drive screens in laptops or all-in-ones, a capability the Tesla M10 completely lacks.

NVIDIA Tesla M10 wins on capacity, peak throughput, and compute-oriented features. The 8 GB frame buffer is four times larger than the GTX 960A's, making it the clear choice for workloads that require large in-memory datasets, such as virtual desktop infrastructure, multi-user GPU sharing, or batch processing of large textures and buffers. Its higher boost clock (1306 MHz) produces superior peak rates: 20.90 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s, and 52.24 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput also favors the Tesla M10 at 1.672 TFLOPS versus 1.505 TFLOPS. The higher memory bandwidth of 83.20 GB/s (versus 80.19 GB/s) further aids memory-bound compute tasks. The Tesla M10's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface offers broader system compatibility than the MXM-B slot, and its lack of display outputs signals that it is intended for headless acceleration, where the GTX 960A's display capability is irrelevant. Its 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU reflect a design that assumes a dedicated server or workstation power budget.

The database's verdict is split by use case. For a single-user, latency-sensitive OpenCL workload or a portable system where power and space are constrained, the GTX 960A is measurably faster in the one recorded test and consumes one-third the power. For multi-user, memory-hungry, or throughput-oriented scenarios where the 8 GB capacity and higher peak rates matter more than the raw OpenCL score, the Tesla M10 holds the advantage. The 16.3% benchmark delta is significant, but it does not erase the Tesla M10's structural strengths in capacity and peak compute rates. The data suggests that the GTX 960A is the better general-purpose performer, while the Tesla M10 excels in specific deployment contexts that favor its larger memory and higher sustained boost.