NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M are both end-of-life graphics cards from NVIDIA, but they occupy vastly different segments of the market. The Tesla C2070 is a Fermi-era compute card from 2011, while the GTX 960M is a Maxwell-based mobile GPU from 2015. Benchmark data from Geekbench shows they are closely matched in overall average scores, yet the nature of their performance and target use cases diverge sharply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 11,045 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716 points. The delta percentage is -12%, meaning the Tesla C2070 trails the GTX 960M by 12% in this compute workload. This is a clear win for the GTX 960M, and it is the sole head-to-head victory recorded, giving the GTX 960M a 1-0 record in wins.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The Tesla C2070 has an average benchmark score of 9,716, while the GTX 960M averages 9,645. This means the Tesla C2070 is actually ahead by a small margin in terms of its single available score, but the GTX 960M benefits from having an additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,245 points, which drags its average down. The percentile ranks are nearly identical: the Tesla C2070 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960M is at the 46th percentile.

Looking at nearest rivals, the Tesla C2070's average score of 9,716 places it within a tight cluster. It is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724), 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665), and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653). Interestingly, it is 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780). The GTX 960M's average of 9,645 is similarly clustered: it is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637), 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, 0.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P4000, and 0.7% behind the Tesla C2070 itself. These deltas are all under 1%, indicating that both cards perform within a very narrow band relative to their closest competitors, despite their architectural differences.

The OpenCL result is the most telling number. A 12% deficit for the Tesla C2070 in raw compute throughput is notable, especially considering its workstation-oriented pedigree. The GTX 960M's higher shading unit count and clock speeds appear to give it an edge in this specific workload, even though the Tesla C2070 has a much larger memory bus and more memory capacity.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 11,045 points, which is 12% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla C2070's score of 9,716 points.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Tesla C2070 has an average benchmark score of 9,716, while the GTX 960M averages 9,645. The Tesla C2070 is slightly ahead in this metric, though both are within 1% of each other.

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

A: Besides the OpenCL score of 11,045, the GTX 960M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,245 points. The Tesla C2070 has no Vulkan benchmark listed.

Q: How do the two cards rank against all other GPUs?

A: The Tesla C2070 is at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960M is at the 46th percentile. They are essentially tied in overall standing.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 960M has a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter, which is more than double the Tesla C2070's density of 5.9 million per square millimeter.

Q: What are the frame buffer specifications for each card?

A: The Tesla C2070 features 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 960M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The Tesla C2070 is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF100 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors onto a 529 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the GTX 960M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ significantly. The Tesla C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The GTX 960M, despite having a smaller die, offers 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This means the GTX 960M has more shading units but fewer texture units and significantly fewer ROPs. The clock speeds also diverge: the Tesla C2070 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The GTX 960M has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystems are starkly different. The Tesla C2070 uses a 384-bit memory bus with 6 GB of GDDR5, delivering 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 960M uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, delivering 80.19 GB/s. This gives the Tesla C2070 a 79% bandwidth advantage, which is critical for memory-intensive workloads. The pixel rate for the Tesla C2070 is 16.07 GPixel/s, while the GTX 960M achieves 18.82 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 32.14 GTexel/s for the Tesla and 47.04 GTexel/s for the GTX 960M. Floating-point performance shows the GTX 960M ahead at 1.505 TFLOPS versus the Tesla C2070's 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The Tesla C2070 belongs to the Tesla Fermi generation (x20xx), while the GTX 960M is from the GeForce 900M generation. Their process nodes are 40 nm versus 28 nm. The Tesla C2070 has a die size of 529 mm², compared to 148 mm² for the GTX 960M. Transistor counts are 3,100 million versus 1,870 million. The GTX 960M has explicit base and boost clocks of 1097 MHz and 1176 MHz, while the Tesla C2070 lists none. Memory sizes are 6 GB versus 4 GB, and bus widths are 384-bit versus 128-bit, leading to bandwidth figures of 143.4 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Power and physical specifications differ wildly. The Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and needs both a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The GTX 960M has a TDP of just 75 W, uses an MXM module form factor, and requires no power connectors. The Tesla C2070 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 bus interface, while the GTX 960M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are 1x DVI for the Tesla C2070, whereas the GTX 960M's outputs are described as portable device dependent. The Tesla C2070 measures 248 mm in length, while the GTX 960M has no listed dimensions. Release dates are July 2011 for the Tesla C2070 and March 2015 for the GTX 960M.

API support shows a key difference: the GTX 960M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla C2070 has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 960M also has a higher memory clock speed at 1253 MHz versus 747 MHz for the Tesla C2070.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner in the GTX 960M for the available OpenCL benchmark, where it leads by 12%. However, the overall average scores are nearly identical, with the Tesla C2070 holding a razor-thin 0.7% edge over the GTX 960M in that aggregate metric. This suggests that the Tesla C2070's single benchmark result is more representative of its average, while the GTX 960M's average is pulled down by its lower Vulkan score.

For raw compute throughput in the OpenCL test, the GTX 960M is the superior choice. Its higher shading unit count (640 versus 448) and faster clocks (1097 MHz base versus no listed base for the Tesla) likely drive this advantage. The Tesla C2070, however, compensates with a much larger memory bus (384-bit versus 128-bit) and double the memory capacity (6 GB versus 4 GB), which could benefit workloads that are bandwidth-limited rather than compute-limited.

The GTX 960M also offers modern API support with Vulkan 1.4, which the Tesla C2070 lacks. This makes the GTX 960M more future-proof for applications that leverage Vulkan. The Tesla C2070's massive 238 W TDP and dual-slot power requirements contrast sharply with the GTX 960M's 75 W mobile-friendly design.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M wins in raw compute performance as measured by Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 11,045 versus 9,716 for the Tesla C2070. It also wins on shading unit count, clock speeds, texture fill rate, and pixel fill rate. The GTX 960M's support for Vulkan 1.4 gives it an advantage in modern cross-platform graphics workloads. Its lower power consumption (75 W versus 238 W) and lack of power connectors make it suitable for portable or mobile deployments.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus delivers 143.4 GB/s, nearly double the GTX 960M's 80.19 GB/s. This makes it more capable for large dataset processing or high-resolution textures that exceed the GTX 960M's 4 GB limit. The Tesla C2070 also has more TMUs (56 versus 40) and ROPs (48 versus 16), which could benefit certain graphics operations. Its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is standard for desktop workstations, and its dual-slot design with dedicated power connectors suggests it is built for sustained compute tasks in a fixed chassis.

For users prioritizing compute speed and modern API support, the GTX 960M is the better option. For those needing maximum memory bandwidth and capacity, the Tesla C2070 holds the edge. The near-identical percentile ranks (47th versus 46th) indicate that in the broader GPU landscape, neither card is dramatically superior to the other.