NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between these two GPUs, and it is a close contest. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX scores 10,723 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 trails with 10,400 points. That is a delta of 3 percent in favor of the GTX 675MX, a narrow margin that suggests the two cards occupy similar performance territory despite their very different design goals.

Looking at the broader database context, the Tesla C2075's average benchmark score of 10,400 places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10,362 (0.4 percent behind the Tesla), the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481 (0.8 percent ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A at 10,273 (1.2 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X at 10,582 (1.7 percent ahead). These are all extremely close margins, indicating the Tesla C2075 sits in a tightly packed cluster of mid-range performance.

The GTX 675MX, on the other hand, records an average benchmark score of 8,427 across two tests. This figure is dragged down by its Geekbench Metal score of 6,131, which is substantially lower than its OpenCL result. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 880M at 8,436 (0.1 percent ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8,458 (0.4 percent ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8,462 (0.4 percent ahead), and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X at 8,325 (1.2 percent behind). The GTX 675MX's percentile ranking of 43 places it slightly below the Tesla C2075 in the overall distribution, but the head-to-head OpenCL result tells a different story.

What makes this comparison intriguing is the divergence between the average benchmark scores and the direct head-to-head result. The Tesla C2075 has a higher average score and a higher percentile rank, yet it loses the one direct comparison available. This implies the Tesla's single OpenCL result is its only data point, while the GTX 675MX's average includes a Metal test that may not reflect its OpenCL capabilities. The direct comparison is the more reliable indicator for this specific workload, and it favors the mobile card by a slim 3 percent.

The texture and pixel throughput figures add another layer to the analysis. The GTX 675MX delivers a texture rate of 52.32 GTexel/s, which is 63 percent higher than the Tesla C2075's 32.14 GTexel/s. However, the Tesla counters with a pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s versus the GTX 675MX's 13.08 GPixel/s, a 23 percent advantage. These complementary strengths suggest the cards excel at different types of rendering workloads, with the GTX 675MX favoring texture-heavy scenes and the Tesla handling fill-rate-bound tasks more efficiently.

In raw compute throughput, the GTX 675MX also holds an edge in FP32 performance, rated at 1,255.7 GFLOPS compared to the Tesla C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. That is approximately 22 percent higher, which aligns with the OpenCL benchmark result favoring the GTX 675MX. The Tesla's larger memory capacity of 6 GB versus 2 GB, and its wider 384-bit memory bus versus 256-bit, do not translate into a benchmark victory in the recorded data.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow winner in the Geekbench OpenCL comparison: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX takes the head-to-head by 3 percent. Its FP32 throughput of 1,255.7 GFLOPS and texture rate of 52.32 GTexel/s support this outcome, as both metrics favor the Kepler-based mobile card. The GTX 675MX also demonstrates versatility by supporting Vulkan 1.2.175, a feature the Tesla C2075 lacks entirely.

However, the Tesla C2075 should not be dismissed. Its average benchmark score of 10,400 exceeds the GTX 675MX's average of 8,427, and its 48th percentile ranking beats the GTX 675MX's 43rd. The Tesla also offers double the memory at 6 GB, a wider memory bus at 384-bit, and higher memory bandwidth at 150.3 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. These specifications suggest the Tesla is built for memory-intensive compute tasks rather than gaming or general graphics.

The choice between these two depends entirely on workload. For OpenCL compute tasks where the benchmark was recorded, the GTX 675MX is the faster option by a slim margin. For applications that require large memory buffers or benefit from higher pixel fill rates, the Tesla C2075 has structural advantages that the benchmarks do not fully capture. The GTX 675MX also consumes far less power at 100 W versus 247 W, making it the more efficient choice on paper, though the Tesla's workstation heritage may justify the higher power draw in professional environments.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 675MX wins in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, posting 10,723 points against the Tesla's 10,400. It also leads in FP32 compute with 1,255.7 GFLOPS, texture rate with 52.32 GTexel/s, and shading unit count at 960 versus 448. These advantages point toward workloads that are compute-heavy or texture-bound, such as general-purpose GPU computing, physics simulations, and applications that leverage OpenCL acceleration.

The Tesla C2075 wins on memory capacity with 6 GB versus 2 GB, memory bandwidth with 150.3 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s, and pixel rate with 16.07 GPixel/s versus 13.08 GPixel/s. Its 384-bit memory bus and 48 ROPs suggest it can handle large datasets and fill-rate-intensive rendering tasks more effectively. The Tesla also has a higher transistor density at 5.8M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm², though this is a reflection of its older 40 nm process node rather than a performance advantage.

In the overall database distribution, the Tesla C2075's average score of 10,400 positions it ahead of the GTX 675MX's 8,427. The Tesla's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, is only 0.4 percent behind, while the GTX 675MX's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, sits 1.2 percent behind. This suggests the Tesla competes in a slightly higher performance tier on average, despite losing the direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX scores 10,723 points, which is 3 percent higher than the NVIDIA Tesla C2075's 10,400 points.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Tesla C2075 has an average benchmark score of 10,400 from one OpenCL test. The GTX 675MX has an average of 8,427 across two tests, which includes a Geekbench Metal score of 6,131 and an OpenCL score of 10,723.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 384-bit bus and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 675MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either GPU support Vulkan?

A: Only the GTX 675MX supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.175 listed. The Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan support recorded in the database.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for these two cards?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors. The GTX 675MX has a TDP of 100 W and uses no external power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The GTX 675MX achieves 1,255.7 GFLOPS in FP32, which is approximately 22 percent higher than the Tesla C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures, which explains many of their specification gaps. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 675MX uses the GK104 chip built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process also at TSMC.

The process node shrink from 40 nm to 28 nm allowed NVIDIA to pack more transistors into a smaller area. The GTX 675MX contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Tesla C2075 contains 3,000 million transistors on a much larger 520 mm² die, yielding a density of only 5.8M per mm². This density difference reflects both the architectural evolution and the manufacturing improvements between the two generations.

The shading unit counts differ dramatically. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, while the GTX 675MX has 960, more than double. The texture mapping units follow a similar pattern, with 56 on the Tesla and 80 on the GTX 675MX. However, the render output units tell the opposite story, with the Tesla having 48 ROPs versus 32 on the GTX 675MX. These architectural choices indicate the Tesla was optimized for fill-rate and memory-intensive compute, while the Kepler design favored parallel shader workloads.

The memory subsystem also reflects different priorities. The Tesla C2075 features a 384-bit memory bus with 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, delivering 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 675MX uses a narrower 256-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, achieving 115.2 GB/s. The Tesla's memory clock is 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), while the GTX 675MX runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), showing that the mobile card compensates for its narrower bus with higher clock speeds.

The release timeline places the Tesla C2075 in July 2011 and the GTX 675MX in September 2012, roughly 14 months apart. The Tesla belongs to the Tesla Fermi generation with the successor being Tesla Kepler, while the GTX 675MX is part of the GeForce 600M family, succeeding GeForce 500M and leading to GeForce 700M. Neither card is still in production, and both have no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The Tesla C2075 uses a 40 nm process node, while the GTX 675MX uses 28 nm. The Tesla's die size is 520 mm² compared to 294 mm² on the GTX 675MX. Transistor counts also differ at 3,000 million versus 3,540 million, with corresponding densities of 5.8M per mm² and 12.0M per mm².

Memory configuration shows stark contrasts: the Tesla has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 675MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s. The memory clocks are 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) for the Tesla and 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) for the GTX 675MX.

Compute and rendering resources differ substantially. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 32.14 GTexel/s. The GTX 675MX has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 13.08 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 52.32 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Tesla and 1,255.7 GFLOPS for the GTX 675MX.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W, is dual-slot, requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, and a 550 W suggested PSU. It measures 248 mm in length. The GTX 675MX has a TDP of 100 W, uses an MXM Module form factor, requires no external power connectors, and has no suggested PSU or dimensions recorded. The Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and has 1x DVI output, while the GTX 675MX uses MXM-B (3.0) and has portable device dependent outputs.

API support shows one key difference: both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the GTX 675MX lists Vulkan support at version 1.2.175. The Tesla has no Vulkan support recorded.