NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the Geekbench OpenCL scores of the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 scores 10400, while the GTX 950A scores 10273. This gives the Tesla C2075 a 1.2% advantage in this specific benchmark, making it the winner in the only head-to-head test available.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 950A has a transistor density of 12.6M / mm², which is substantially higher than the Tesla C2075's 5.8M / mm². This reflects the newer 28 nm process node used by the Maxwell-based GTX 950A versus the 40 nm node of the Fermi-based Tesla.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Tesla C2075 features 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 950A has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 32.03 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla C2075 has a clear advantage in memory capacity and bandwidth.

Q: How do the shading unit counts differ between the two?

A: The GTX 950A has 640 shading units, while the Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units. This means the GTX 950A has roughly 43% more shading units, which contributes to its higher theoretical FP32 performance of 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Tesla.

Q: What is the power draw difference between these two cards?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and requires a 550 W power supply, along with a 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connector setup. The GTX 950A has a much lower TDP of 75 W and requires no external power connectors, reflecting its mobile-oriented MXM form factor.

Q: Which GPU supports the Vulkan API?

A: The GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins in the compute-heavy, high-bandwidth workstation segment. Its 6 GB GDDR5 memory pool on a 384-bit interface delivers 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is roughly 4.7 times the bandwidth of the GTX 950A. This makes the Tesla C2075 the superior choice for workloads that are memory-bound, such as large dataset processing, scientific simulations, and professional compute tasks that require substantial VRAM capacity. The data confirms this advantage in raw compute throughput as well, with the Tesla C2075 edging out the GTX 950A by 1.2% in Geekbench OpenCL, despite having fewer shading units.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A wins in efficiency and architectural modernity. The Maxwell-based chip operates at a mere 75 W TDP, which is less than one-third of the Tesla C2075's 247 W requirement. This makes the GTX 950A far more suitable for portable or power-constrained environments, as evidenced by its MXM Module form factor and lack of external power connectors. The GTX 950A also has a higher FP32 throughput of 1,438.7 GFLOPS, which is about 40% higher than the Tesla C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, making it the better choice for compute tasks that are not limited by memory bandwidth. Additionally, the GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4, a feature entirely absent from the Tesla C2075.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The Tesla C2075 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture using the GF110 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is a large, complex chip with 3,000 million transistors spread across a 520 mm² die. The Fermi architecture was designed for high-performance computing and professional workloads, which is reflected in its massive memory interface and high power envelope.

In contrast, the GTX 950A uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This chip packs 1,870 million transistors into a much smaller 148 mm² die. The Maxwell architecture emphasizes efficiency and compute-per-watt, which is evident in the dramatically lower TDP and the higher transistor density of 12.6M / mm² versus 5.8M / mm² on the Fermi chip.

The shading unit configuration also differs significantly. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The GTX 950A has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This configuration suggests the GTX 950A is designed to excel at shader-heavy compute tasks, while the Tesla C2075's higher ROP count and wider memory bus make it better suited for pixel-heavy and memory-intensive operations.

The API support also reveals the architectural gap. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, which is notable given the Tesla's 2011 release. However, only the GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4, indicating that the Maxwell architecture has more modern driver and API capabilities.

Specification Differences

The most prominent specification differences between these two GPUs are in memory and power. The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 950A has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.03 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla's memory clock is listed at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), whereas the GTX 950A has a memory clock of 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The GTX 950A has a base clock of 993 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The Tesla C2075 does not have base or boost clocks listed, only its memory clock, which makes direct clock comparison impossible from the available data.

The physical specifications diverge significantly. The Tesla C2075 is a dual-slot card with a length of 248 mm (9.8 inches), requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU. The GTX 950A is an MXM Module with no specified dimensions, no power connectors required, and no suggested PSU listed. This reflects the Tesla's desktop workstation orientation versus the GTX 950A's mobile/laptop orientation.

The bus interface also differs: the Tesla C2075 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 950A uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are limited on both, with the Tesla offering 1x DVI and the GTX 950A being "Portable Device Dependent."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Tesla C2075 scores 10400 against the GTX 950A's 10273. This yields a 1.2% delta in favor of the Tesla C2075, marking it as the winner in the sole head-to-head benchmark. While this margin is relatively small, it is consistent with the Tesla C2075's positioning relative to its nearest rivals in this test.

Examining the nearest rival data provides additional context. The Tesla C2075's nearest competitors include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M with an average score of 10362 (a 0.4% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 550X with 10481 (a -0.8% delta), and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X with 10582 (a -1.7% delta). The GTX 950A's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M with a -0.9% delta, the Tesla C2075 with a -1.2% delta, and the AMD Radeon R9 M375 with a 2% delta.

The benchmark data shows that both GPUs sit in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are mid-pack performers. The Tesla C2075's average benchmark score is 10400, while the GTX 950A's is 10273. Despite the GTX 950A's higher FP32 rating of 1,438.7 GFLOPS, the Tesla C2075's superior memory bandwidth appears to give it a slight edge in the OpenCL workload tested. This suggests that the Geekbench OpenCL test is sensitive to memory performance, where the Tesla's 150.3 GB/s bandwidth far exceeds the GTX 950A's 32.03 GB/s.

The wins tally is 1 for the Tesla C2075 and 0 for the GTX 950A in the head-to-head benchmarks. However, this single data point should be weighed against the architectural strengths of each card. The GTX 950A's higher pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s and texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s versus the Tesla's 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s suggest that in different benchmark scenarios, the GTX 950A could overcome its memory deficit. The Tesla C2075's higher ROP count of 48 versus 16 further indicates that the two cards are optimized for different types of workloads, even if they land at nearly the same overall OpenCL score.