NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M vs NVIDIA Tesla K10 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and the NVIDIA Tesla K10 are both end-of-life GPUs built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they target entirely different use cases: one is a mobile graphics processor for laptops, the other a dual-slot compute accelerator for servers. In the sole available benchmark, the GTX 965M edges out the Tesla K10 by 3.4% in Geekbench OpenCL, yet the K10 counters with a far larger memory bus and nearly double the bandwidth, making the choice dependent on whether raw compute throughput or memory-heavy workloads take priority.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M has an average benchmark score of 14404, while the NVIDIA Tesla K10 scores 14029. This places the GTX 965M in the 56th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 55th percentile for the Tesla K10.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 965M scores 14509 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 14029 for the Tesla K10. The GTX 965M wins by a delta of 3.4%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Tesla K10 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 965M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The K10 provides exactly double the memory capacity and bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Tesla K10 has 1536 shading units and 128 TMUs, whereas the GTX 965M has 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs. The K10 leads by 50% in shading units and 100% in TMUs.

Q: What are the power and physical requirements for each card?

A: The Tesla K10 has a 225 W TDP, requires a 550 W suggested PSU, uses a dual-slot form factor with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, and is 272 mm (10.7 inches) long. The GTX 965M is an MXM Module with no power connectors listed and is portable-device dependent.

Q: Which card has newer API support?

A: The GTX 965M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla K10 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, meaning the GTX 965M has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 965M is built on the GM204 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the Tesla K10 uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ significantly: the GTX 965M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The Tesla K10 contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0M per mm². This means the GTX 965M has roughly 47% more transistors and a 35% larger die area, translating to a higher transistor density.

The shading unit count favors the Tesla K10, which has 1536 units versus 1024 on the GTX 965M, a 50% advantage. Similarly, the K10 doubles the TMU count at 128 versus 64. However, the ROP count is identical at 32 for both cards. Clock speeds are only specified for the GTX 965M, with a base of 924 MHz and boost of 950 MHz, while the Tesla K10 has no listed clocks. This clock information asymmetry partially explains why the K10’s higher shading unit count does not translate into a higher OpenCL score.

Memory architecture diverges sharply: the Tesla K10 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 160.0 GB/s, while the GTX 965M has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus at 80.19 GB/s. The K10’s memory bandwidth is exactly double that of the GTX 965M, a critical factor for compute workloads that stream large datasets. The GTX 965M’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Kepler-based K10 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Tesla K10 lacks display outputs entirely, while the GTX 965M has portable-device-dependent outputs, reflecting their intended roles as server accelerator versus mobile GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 965M scores 14509 against the Tesla K10’s 14029. This yields a 3.4% advantage for the GTX 965M, a modest but clear win. The GTX 965M’s average benchmark score of 14404 also exceeds the K10’s 14029 by roughly 2.7%. In percentile terms, the GTX 965M sits at the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the K10 is at the 55th, a one-percentile gap that aligns with the narrow benchmark margin.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The GTX 965M is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (average score 14385), 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14373), 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14352), and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14315). The Tesla K10, by contrast, trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 by 0.9% (14150), but leads the AMD Radeon RX 570X by 1.1% (13871), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile by 1.5% (13821), and the AMD Radeon 660M by 1.6% (13812). This shows the GTX 965M clustering near the top of a tight performance band, while the K10 sits slightly lower but still competitive.

The GTX 965M also demonstrates a lead in pixel rate, at 30.40 GPixel/s versus 23.84 GPixel/s for the K10, a difference of roughly 27%. However, the Tesla K10’s texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s is 57% higher than the GTX 965M’s 60.80 GTexel/s, reflecting its doubled TMU count. In FP32 compute, the K10 reaches 2.289 TFLOPS, which is 17.6% higher than the GTX 965M’s 1.946 TFLOPS. These synthetic peak rates tell a more complex story than the single OpenCL benchmark, indicating that the K10 has superior theoretical compute and texture throughput, while the GTX 965M wins in rasterization-related metrics like pixel fill rate and the actual OpenCL workload.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate the GTX 965M is the faster card in real-world OpenCL performance, winning the only head-to-head test by 3.4%. Its higher average score and better percentile ranking reinforce this conclusion. For users seeking maximum compatibility with modern APIs, the GTX 965M’s DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 support clearly outclasses the K10’s DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 965M also consumes far less power — its TDP is not listed, but the Tesla K10’s 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU make it a power-hungry option, whereas the GTX 965M is an MXM module with no power connectors needed.

However, the Tesla K10 is not without merit. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth are exactly double the GTX 965M’s, making it superior for memory-bound compute tasks that exceed 2 GB. The K10’s higher shading unit count (1536 vs 1024), TMU count (128 vs 64), and FP32 throughput (2.289 TFLOPS vs 1.946 TFLOPS) give it a theoretical edge in raw compute density. The launch MSRP of the Tesla K10 was 5,099 USD, reflecting its professional compute positioning, though price comparisons are not part of this analysis.

The verdict depends on the workload. For general-purpose mobile graphics, gaming, or API-modern applications, the GTX 965M is the stronger choice based on the benchmark data. For large-scale scientific or data-parallel compute where memory capacity and bandwidth dominate, the Tesla K10’s doubled memory subsystem and higher compute peaks make it the more suitable hardware, despite losing the OpenCL test.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The GTX 965M uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the Tesla K10 uses GK104 with Kepler. Transistor counts are 5,200 million versus 3,540 million, and die sizes are 398 mm² versus 294 mm², with densities of 13.1M/mm² and 12.0M/mm² respectively. Clock speeds are only listed for the GTX 965M (924 MHz base, 950 MHz boost), with no clocks given for the K10.

Memory differs fundamentally: the GTX 965M has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 80.19 GB/s, while the K10 has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 160.0 GB/s. The K10 also has more shading units (1536 vs 1024) and TMUs (128 vs 64), but the ROP count is equal at 32. Pixel rate favors the GTX 965M (30.40 GPixel/s vs 23.84 GPixel/s), while texture rate favors the K10 (95.36 GTexel/s vs 60.80 GTexel/s). FP32 compute is higher on the K10 (2.289 TFLOPS vs 1.946 TFLOPS).

Physical and power characteristics diverge completely. The GTX 965M is an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the K10 is a dual-slot card with 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors, a 225 W TDP, a 550 W suggested PSU, and a length of 272 mm. The GTX 965M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, whereas the K10 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device dependent on the GTX 965M, while the K10 has no outputs. API support also differs, with the GTX 965M supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, versus DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175 on the K10. Release dates are 2015-01-08 for the GTX 965M and 2012-04-30 for the K10, with the former succeeding GeForce 800M and the latter succeeding Tesla Fermi.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 965M wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the only direct comparison, with a 3.4% advantage. It also leads in pixel rate (30.40 GPixel/s vs 23.84 GPixel/s), which benefits rasterization-heavy tasks like traditional 3D rendering. Its newer architecture supports higher DirectX feature levels (12_1 vs 11_0) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.175), making it the better choice for modern graphics APIs. The GTX 965M’s MXM form factor and lack of power connectors make it suitable for portable devices, and its higher average benchmark score (14404 vs 14029) positions it better in overall performance rankings.

The Tesla K10 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth, offering 4 GB versus 2 GB and 160.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. This makes it the superior option for workloads that require large data sets resident in VRAM, such as deep learning inference or big-data analytics. The K10 also has a 50% higher shading unit count (1536 vs 1024) and double the TMUs (128 vs 64), delivering a texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s versus 60.80 GTexel/s, which is advantageous for texture-heavy compute. Its FP32 throughput of 2.289 TFLOPS exceeds the GTX 965M’s 1.946 TFLOPS by 17.6%, and the K10’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface with dual-slot cooling suits a server environment. The K10’s higher TDP of 225 W indicates it is designed for sustained compute loads, whereas the GTX 965M’s unspecified TDP and mobile form factor suggest a focus on efficiency over brute force.