Tesla C2075 vs GeForce GTX 660
Aggregate performance score
GeForce GTX 660 outperforms Tesla C2075 by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 405 | 461 |
| Place by popularity | 69 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.40 | 0.37 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK106 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 September 2012 (11 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | no data |
| Current price | $172 (0.8x MSRP) | $2237 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 660 has 549% better value for money than Tesla C2075.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 960 | 448 |
| CUDA cores | 960 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1033 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,540 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 247 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 78.4 billion/sec | 32.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,981 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | 248 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | One 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192-bit GDDR5 | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 3132 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.2 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | 1x DVI |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | no data |
| 3D Gaming | + | no data |
| 3D Vision | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GeForce GTX 660 outperforms Tesla C2075 by 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 660 outperforms Tesla C2075 by 19% in Passmark.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Tesla C2075 outperforms GeForce GTX 660 by 24% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 47
+34.3%
| 35−40
−34.3%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.34 | 8.70 |
| Recency | 6 September 2012 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 247 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2075 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 660 is a desktop card while Tesla C2075 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
