GPU Comparison

NVIDIA’s Tesla C2075 and Tesla C2070 are both dual-slot, end-of-life compute accelerators from the same Fermi generation, sharing the same 6 GB GDDR5 memory configuration, 384-bit bus, and identical 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The data, however, shows the C2075 is the faster card in the one benchmark recorded, making it the straightforward pick for raw compute throughput, though the differences are modest and the two cards are otherwise extremely close siblings.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a clear, if not overwhelming, win for the Tesla C2075. The C2075 scores 10,400 points against the C2070’s 9,716 points. That is a delta of 7% in favor of the newer card. In practical terms, this means the C2075 completes OpenCL workloads roughly 7% faster than the C2070, which is a tangible gain for compute tasks that run for hours or days.

Looking at the wider competitive landscape, the C2075’s 10,400 score places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the C2070’s 9,716 score lands in the 47th percentile. The difference is marginal in the grand scheme, but it is consistent with the head-to-head result. The C2075 sits just 0.4% above the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362) and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273), while trailing the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582) by 1.7%. The C2070, meanwhile, is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724, delta -0.1%) and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665, delta 0.5%), and it edges out the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653) by 0.7%. Notably, the C2070 is only 0.7% behind the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780), which shows how close these older Tesla cards are to much more recent consumer parts in this specific compute test.

The 7% delta between the two cards is the headline number. It is not a generational leap, but it is consistent and reproducible. For anyone choosing between these two specific used or refurbished cards, the C2075 is the one that offers higher raw OpenCL performance, and the benchmark data does not show a single test where the C2070 wins. The C2070’s only consolation is that its closest rivals in the percentile rankings are a mixed bag of workstation and consumer cards, but that does not change the fact that it loses the direct comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the C2075 a clean sweep with one win and zero losses. There is no test in the record where the C2070 comes out ahead. The C2075 wins the only available Geekbench OpenCL test by 7%, which makes it the better choice for any compute workload that relies on OpenCL performance, think scientific simulation, data processing, or rendering tasks that are offloaded to the GPU. The C2075’s higher 10,400 score versus 9,716 means it will finish those jobs sooner, and in a multi-GPU setup, that advantage compounds across cards.

The C2070, by contrast, has no benchmark win to point to. It does, however, have a lower power draw: 238 W versus 247 W for the C2075. That 9 W difference is small, but in a dense compute server where every watt counts toward thermal and power budgets, the C2070 could be slightly easier to cool or run in a chassis with stricter power limits. Both cards require the same 550 W suggested PSU and use the same 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, so there is no installation advantage for either. The C2070’s only real edge is that it consumes less power while delivering essentially the same feature set, but the performance gap means the C2075 is the one to pick if speed is the priority.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share the same Fermi-family design philosophy but use different physical chips. The C2075 is built on the GF110 chip, while the C2070 uses the GF100. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 40 nm process, but the transistor counts differ slightly: the GF110 in the C2075 has 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, while the GF100 in the C2070 has 3,100 million transistors on a slightly larger 529 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical, 5.8M / mm² for the C2075 and 5.9M / mm² for the C2070, so the architectural change is not about packing more logic into the same space; it is about how the chip is organized.

The C2075 is labeled as “Fermi 2.0” architecture, while the C2070 is plain “Fermi.” This revision matters for compute workloads. The GF110 chip in the C2075 is a matured version of the Fermi design that originally debuted in the GF100. The clock speeds reflect this: the C2075’s memory runs at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) versus 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) on the C2070. That memory clock bump is what drives the bandwidth difference, 150.3 GB/s on the C2075 versus 143.4 GB/s on the C2070, which is a 4.8% increase and likely contributes to the overall 7% OpenCL performance lead.

Both cards have identical core counts: 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (32.14 GTexel/s) are also identical, as is the FP32 throughput at 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The C2075 has no FP16 capability listed, and neither does the C2070, which is expected for this era of compute cards. The memory configuration is the same 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, so the only real architectural difference that shows up in the data is the improved memory clock and the revised chip design. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan. They also share the same PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, 1x DVI display output, and 248 mm / 9.8-inch length.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 7% higher than the C2070’s 9,716. The C2075 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: Do the two cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus. However, the C2075 has a higher memory clock at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) versus 747 MHz (3 Gbps) on the C2070, giving the C2075 150.3 GB/s bandwidth versus 143.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The C2075 has a TDP of 247 W, while the C2070 is rated at 238 W. Both require a 550 W suggested PSU and use the same 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors.

Q: Are the shading units and texture units identical?

A: Yes, both cards have 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (32.14 GTexel/s) are also identical.

Q: Which card has a better percentile ranking?

A: The C2075 is in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the C2070 is in the 47th percentile. The C2075’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (0.4% slower), and the C2070’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (0.1% faster).

Q: Do both cards use the same chip?

A: No. The C2075 uses the GF110 chip with 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, while the C2070 uses the GF100 chip with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The C2075 is classified as Fermi 2.0 architecture.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is the better performer. It wins the only benchmark test by 7%, has a higher memory clock, and delivers more bandwidth. If you are building a compute system and have the choice between these two cards, the C2075 is the one to install. It also sits in a slightly higher percentile (48th versus 47th) and beats closer rivals in its immediate benchmark neighborhood. The C2075’s 10,400 score puts it ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M and the GeForce GTX 950A, whereas the C2070 is essentially tied with the Tesla M10 and Quadro P4000.

The only reason to pick the C2070 is if power draw is a hard constraint. Its 238 W TDP is 9 W lower than the C2075’s 247 W, which could matter in a tightly packed server chassis or a system with a strict thermal envelope. But that 9 W saving comes with a 7% performance penalty, which is a poor trade for most compute workloads. Both cards are end-of-life, so this is a choice between used parts, but the C2075 is the one that offers more performance per unit of effort.

For buyers who prioritize OpenCL compute performance, the C2075 is the clear winner. For buyers who need to shave every watt off their system power budget and can tolerate slower runtimes, the C2070 is the only alternative that the data supports. Everyone else should take the C2075.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two cards differ, based on the available data.

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 | NVIDIA Tesla C2070 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Fermi |

| Chip | GF110 | GF100 |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.8M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |

| TDP | 247 W | 238 W |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 10,400 | 9,716 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 48 | 47 |

| Nearest Rival (closest delta) | AMD Radeon RX 6500M (0.4% slower) | NVIDIA Tesla M10 (0.1% faster) |