NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

NVIDIA’s Tesla C2070 and GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK represent two distinct eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The Tesla C2070 is a Fermi-generation compute card from 2011, while the TITAN BLACK is a Kepler-based consumer flagship from 2014. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the TITAN BLACK delivers a decisive victory, but the Tesla C2070 still holds relevance in specific legacy compute contexts, as detailed below.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is not close. The Tesla C2070 scores 9716, while the GTX TITAN BLACK scores 27218. That is a 64.3% advantage for the TITAN BLACK, making it nearly three times faster in raw compute throughput. This aligns with the theoretical specs: the TITAN BLACK’s FP32 performance is listed at 5.645 TFLOPS versus the Tesla C2070’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). The TITAN BLACK’s shading unit count (2880) is over six times higher than the Tesla’s 448, and its texture rate (235.2 GTexel/s) dwarfs the older card’s 32.14 GTexel/s.

The delta of -64.3% (from the perspective of the Tesla C2070) is the largest gap in the head-to-head data. For context, the Tesla C2070’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (score 9724, delta -0.1%) and the Quadro P4000 (score 9665, delta 0.5%). This shows the C2070 sits in a tight performance cluster around the 9700-point mark. Meanwhile, the TITAN BLACK’s nearest rivals include the GTX 760 (score 9458, delta 0.2%) and the Quadro K5000 (score 9637, delta -1.7%), which are all lower performers. In other words, the TITAN BLACK’s OpenCL score places it in a different league entirely, far above its nearest competitors in the database.

It is worth remembering the TITAN BLACK also has additional benchmark results beyond OpenCL, including Geekbench Metal (24172), Geekbench Vulkan (29561), and Passmark scores such as G3D (9184) and GPU Compute (3726). The Tesla C2070 has no corresponding entries for these tests, so direct comparison is impossible, but the TITAN BLACK’s multi-API strength is evident from its high scores across different workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Tesla C2070 has an average benchmark score of 9716, while the GTX TITAN BLACK averages 9474. Despite the TITAN BLACK winning the head-to-head OpenCL test overwhelmingly, its average across all its benchmarks (including lower Passmark DX9 and DX10 scores) pulls its mean down below the Tesla’s single-score average.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX TITAN BLACK offers 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than double the Tesla C2070’s 143.4 GB/s. Both cards use 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, but the TITAN BLACK’s memory clock is 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus the Tesla’s 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Tesla C2070 is built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, while the TITAN BLACK uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The newer node allows the TITAN BLACK to pack 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.6M / mm² compared to the Tesla’s 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die (5.9M / mm²).

Q: Does the TITAN BLACK support more modern APIs?

A: Yes. The TITAN BLACK lists Vulkan support (1.2.175) and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Tesla C2070 has no Vulkan entry and DirectX 12 (11_0). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W and suggests a 550 W power supply, while the TITAN BLACK has a TDP of 250 W and suggests a 600 W PSU. Both use the same power connector configuration: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin.

Q: Which card is physically larger?

A: The TITAN BLACK is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) compared to the Tesla C2070’s 248 mm (9.8 inches). The TITAN BLACK also has listed height (111 mm) and width (38 mm) dimensions, which the Tesla lacks. Both are dual-slot cards.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Tesla C2070 uses Fermi (chip GF100), a design from 2011 that was optimized for early GPGPU compute workloads. Its 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs are modest by modern standards, and its FP32 throughput of 1,027.7 GFLOPS reflects a compute-first but older design. The Fermi architecture lacks dedicated Vulkan support and only reaches DirectX 11_0 capability.

In contrast, the GTX TITAN BLACK uses Kepler (chip GK110B), a later architecture that dramatically increased parallel throughput. It features 2880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs — the same ROP count as the Tesla, but with five times more shaders and over four times more TMUs. This allows for a pixel rate of 58.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 235.2 GTexel/s, versus the Tesla’s 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s. The Kepler architecture also brings support for Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_1), making it more compatible with modern software.

The memory subsystem also differs in speed, though not in capacity or bus width. Both cards use 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit interface, but the TITAN BLACK’s effective memory clock of 7 Gbps yields 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Tesla’s 3 Gbps effective clock yields 143.4 GB/s. The transistor count also tells a story: the TITAN BLACK crams 7,080 million transistors into a slightly larger die (561 mm²), achieving a density of 12.6M / mm² versus the Tesla’s 5.9M / mm² (with 3,100 million transistors on 529 mm²). This density improvement is a direct result of the 28 nm process versus 40 nm.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the GTX TITAN BLACK is the superior performer in raw compute. Its OpenCL score of 27218 is 64.3% higher than the Tesla C2070’s 9716, and its theoretical throughput (5.645 TFLOPS) is over five times higher. The TITAN BLACK also offers superior memory bandwidth (336.0 GB/s vs 143.4 GB/s) and more modern API support, including Vulkan. For any workload that leverages OpenCL or modern graphics APIs, the TITAN BLACK is the clear choice.

However, the Tesla C2070 is not without merit. Its average benchmark score (9716) is actually higher than the TITAN BLACK’s average (9474), because the TITAN BLACK’s Passmark DX9 (133) and DX10 (47) scores are low relative to its compute scores. The Tesla also has a lower TDP (238 W vs 250 W) and a smaller physical footprint (248 mm vs 267 mm). For users constrained by power or slot space, or those running legacy Fermi-optimized compute code, the C2070 may still be functional. But the data overwhelmingly favors the TITAN BLACK for performance.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two cards differ:

| Specification | Tesla C2070 | GTX TITAN BLACK |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler |

| Chip | GF100 | GK110B |

| Generation | Tesla Fermi (x20xx) | GeForce 700 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 143.4 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 448 | 2880 |

| TMUs | 56 | 240 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 58.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 235.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 5.645 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 238 W | 250 W |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | None | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 248 mm (9.8 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | Not listed | 38 mm (1.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2011-07-24 | 2014-02-17 |

| Predecessor | Tesla | GeForce 600 |

| Successor | Tesla Kepler | GeForce 900 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 999 USD |

Where Each One Wins

GTX TITAN BLACK wins on:

• OpenCL compute performance, with a 64.3% higher score (27218 vs 9716).
• Memory bandwidth, delivering 336.0 GB/s versus 143.4 GB/s.
• Shader and texture throughput, with 2880 shading units and 235.2 GTexel/s texture rate.
• Modern API support, including Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_1).
• Display connectivity, offering four outputs (2x DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort) versus a single DVI.
• PCIe 3.0 interface, doubling the bus bandwidth of the Tesla’s PCIe 2.0.

Tesla C2070 wins on:

• Average benchmark score (9716 vs 9474), due to the TITAN BLACK’s weaker legacy DirectX scores.
• Power efficiency per watt in compute tasks, with a lower TDP (238 W vs 250 W) despite a much lower performance ceiling.
• Physical compactness, at 248 mm length versus 267 mm, and no listed height/width constraints.
• Earlier release date (2011 vs 2014), which may matter for legacy software compatibility with Fermi-specific code paths.

In practical terms, the TITAN BLACK is the pick for any modern compute or gaming workload, while the C2070 remains a niche option for environments locked into older Fermi toolchains or where its lower power draw and smaller size are critical. The data does not support the C2070 as a competitive performer against the TITAN BLACK in any head-to-head metric.