NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

NVIDIA’s Tesla C2075 and GeForce GTX 960M represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects that divide. The Tesla C2075 is a Fermi-generation compute card from 2011, built for workstations and servers, while the GTX 960M is a Maxwell-based mobile part from 2015 aimed at laptops. Despite the age gap, the two products land close in raw OpenCL performance, though the GTX 960M edges ahead. With only one shared benchmark in the data, the comparison is tight but revealing: the GTX 960M wins the sole head-to-head test, while the Tesla C2075 relies on its larger memory bus and compute-oriented heritage to stay competitive. The data shows a 5.8% swing in favor of the newer chip, but the story is more nuanced when you look at where each card’s strengths lie.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960M takes the only direct benchmark victory, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 11045 against the Tesla C2075’s 10400. That 5.8% margin is modest, but it signals the Maxwell architecture’s efficiency advantage—the 960M achieves this with a 75 W TDP and a 28 nm process, compared to the Tesla’s 247 W draw and 40 nm node. For users prioritizing raw computational throughput per watt, the GTX 960M is the clear winner. Its higher shading unit count (640 vs 448) and faster texture rate (47.04 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s) also give it an edge in workloads that scale with shader parallelism, such as general-purpose OpenCL tasks or texture-heavy operations.

The Tesla C2075, however, wins in memory bandwidth and capacity. It packs 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 150.3 GB/s—nearly double the GTX 960M’s 80.19 GB/s from its 128-bit interface. For compute workloads that are memory-bound, like large matrix operations or data processing that exceeds the 960M’s 4 GB frame buffer, the Tesla’s wider pipeline is a decisive advantage. It also has more ROPs (48 vs 16), which translates to a higher pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s vs 18.82 GPixel/s—wait, that actually favors the 960M on pixel fill, but the Tesla’s ROP count suggests better raw rasterization throughput in specific scenarios). The practical takeaway is simple: pick the GTX 960M for energy-efficient compute and shader-heavy tasks, pick the Tesla C2075 for memory-hungry workloads or when you need more than 4 GB of VRAM.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 960M scores 11045, beating the Tesla C2075’s 10400 by 5.8%. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available in the data.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 960M offers 4 GB on a 128-bit bus, with 80.19 GB/s—the Tesla provides roughly 87% more bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Tesla C2075 is rated at 247 W TDP, while the GTX 960M is a 75 W part. That is a 172 W gap, making the 960M far more suitable for portable or low-power systems.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 960M features 640 shading units, compared to the Tesla C2075’s 448. This gives the 960M a 192-unit advantage, which helps in shader-bound compute tasks.

Q: What about API support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 960M adds Vulkan 1.4 support. The Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life. The Tesla C2075 released in July 2011, and the GTX 960M arrived in March 2015.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 960M wins with 11045 points versus the Tesla C2075’s 10400. That is a delta of -5.8% for the Tesla, meaning the 960M is ahead by roughly 6%. This margin is consistent with the cards’ relative positions in their respective rival groups: the Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960M is at the 46th percentile—essentially equivalent overall, despite the 960M’s win in this specific test.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The Tesla C2075’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, which scores 10362 (a 0.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10481 (-0.8%). The GTX 960M, meanwhile, is nearly tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9637, 0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9653, -0.1%). These rival clusters show that both cards land in the same performance tier, but the 960M’s higher raw score (11045 vs 10400) gives it the edge in this particular workload. The data does not include a Vulkan test for the Tesla, so the 960M’s 8245 Vulkan score stands alone—another win by default, though not directly comparable.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on process technology and board design. The Tesla C2075 is built on TSMC’s 40 nm process, while the GTX 960M uses 28 nm. This allows the 960M to pack 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, whereas the Tesla uses 3,000 million transistors across 520 mm². Transistor density tells the story: the 960M achieves 12.6M transistors per mm², more than double the Tesla’s 5.8M/mm². Clock speeds also differ—the Tesla lists no base or boost clocks, but its memory runs at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), while the 960M has a 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is a major split. The Tesla offers 6 GB across a 384-bit bus, versus 4 GB on a 128-bit bus for the 960M. Bandwidth follows suit: 150.3 GB/s for the Tesla, 80.19 GB/s for the 960M. Compute resources differ too—the Tesla has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs; the 960M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates reflect this: the Tesla hits 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s, while the 960M reaches 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput also favors the 960M at 1,505 GFLOPS (1.505 TFLOPS) versus the Tesla’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs are starkly different. The Tesla consumes 247 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and needs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, plus a 550 W PSU. The 960M draws only 75 W, uses an MXM module form factor, has no power connectors, and lists no PSU requirement. The Tesla uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and has one DVI output; the 960M uses MXM-B (3.0) and its display outputs are portable-device dependent. The Tesla measures 248 mm in length (9.8 inches); the 960M has no listed dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The Tesla C2075 is built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, using the GF110 chip. Fermi was NVIDIA’s first compute-oriented architecture to support ECC memory and robust double-precision performance, though the data does not list those specifics. Its 40 nm node and 3,000 million transistors reflect a design focused on raw throughput over efficiency. The GTX 960M, in contrast, uses Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. Maxwell is known for dramatic power efficiency improvements—the 960M’s 75 W TDP versus the Tesla’s 247 W is proof—and it introduced better geometry processing and tile-based rasterization, though those are not quantified here.

The generation lineage differs as well. The Tesla C2075 belongs to the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation, with the predecessor being “Tesla” and the successor “Tesla Kepler.” The GTX 960M is part of the GeForce 900M generation, succeeding the GeForce 800M and leading to GeForce 10 Mobile. This places the 960M two architectural generations ahead, which explains its higher transistor density (12.6M/mm² vs 5.8M/mm²) despite fewer total transistors (1,870 million vs 3,000 million). The smaller die (148 mm² vs 520 mm²) and newer process allow the 960M to deliver more performance per watt, as evidenced by its higher FP32 output (1.505 TFLOPS vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS) at one-third the power draw.

API support also diverges. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the GTX 960M lists Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan support, which limits its compatibility with modern cross-platform graphics and compute APIs. The 960M’s memory clock is also significantly higher (1253 MHz vs 783 MHz), contributing to its 5 Gbps effective data rate versus the Tesla’s 3.1 Gbps. These architectural differences explain the benchmark results: the 960M’s newer design wins on efficiency and raw shader throughput, while the Tesla’s older, wider memory subsystem remains a niche strength for bandwidth-bound tasks.