Tesla C2075 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Super with Tesla C2075, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660 Super
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 125 Watt
33.04
+279%

GTX 1660 Super outperforms Tesla C2075 by a whopping 279% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking159486
Place by popularity8not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation59.25no data
Power efficiency18.302.44
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameTU116GF110
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date29 October 2019 (5 years ago)25 July 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1408448
Core clock speed1530 MHz574 MHz
Boost clock speed1785 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,600 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt247 Watt
Texture fill rate157.132.14
Floating-point processing power5.027 TFLOPS1.028 TFLOPS
ROPs4848
TMUs8856

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length229 mm248 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB6 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz783 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.0 GB/s150.3 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

NVENC+no data
Ansel+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.55.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA7.52.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark 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.

GTX 1660 Super 33.04
+279%
Tesla C2075 8.72

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

GTX 1660 Super 12751
+279%
Tesla C2075 3364

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 HD93
+288%
24−27
−288%
1440p56
+300%
14−16
−300%
4K30
+329%
7−8
−329%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.46no data
1440p4.09no data
4K7.63no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 76
+322%
18−20
−322%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 88
+319%
21−24
−319%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 66
+313%
16−18
−313%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+296%
27−30
−296%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 80
+281%
21−24
−281%
Cyberpunk 2077 63
+294%
16−18
−294%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+311%
18−20
−311%
Far Cry New Dawn 121
+303%
30−33
−303%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+289%
45−50
−289%
Hitman 3 77
+328%
18−20
−328%
Horizon Zero Dawn 321
+301%
80−85
−301%
Metro Exodus 144
+311%
35−40
−311%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80
+281%
21−24
−281%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
+290%
30−33
−290%
Watch Dogs: Legion 217
+295%
55−60
−295%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 135
+286%
35−40
−286%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 48
+300%
12−14
−300%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+296%
27−30
−296%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 72
+300%
18−20
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 52
+333%
12−14
−333%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+311%
18−20
−311%
Far Cry New Dawn 86
+310%
21−24
−310%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+289%
45−50
−289%
Hitman 3 75
+317%
18−20
−317%
Horizon Zero Dawn 290
+287%
75−80
−287%
Metro Exodus 118
+293%
30−33
−293%
Red Dead Redemption 2 89
+324%
21−24
−324%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 129
+330%
30−33
−330%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+283%
18−20
−283%
Watch Dogs: Legion 208
+316%
50−55
−316%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 51
+325%
12−14
−325%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 44
+340%
10−11
−340%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55
+293%
14−16
−293%
Cyberpunk 2077 49
+308%
12−14
−308%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+311%
18−20
−311%
Forza Horizon 4 107
+296%
27−30
−296%
Hitman 3 65
+306%
16−18
−306%
Horizon Zero Dawn 99
+313%
24−27
−313%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 112
+315%
27−30
−315%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61
+281%
16−18
−281%
Watch Dogs: Legion 31
+288%
8−9
−288%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 57
+307%
14−16
−307%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+294%
16−18
−294%
Far Cry New Dawn 57
+307%
14−16
−307%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40
+300%
10−11
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 34
+325%
8−9
−325%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 38
+280%
10−11
−280%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+333%
6−7
−333%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+280%
10−11
−280%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+280%
50−55
−280%
Hitman 3 43
+330%
10−11
−330%
Horizon Zero Dawn 71
+294%
18−20
−294%
Metro Exodus 67
+319%
16−18
−319%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80
+281%
21−24
−281%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+350%
10−11
−350%
Watch Dogs: Legion 196
+292%
50−55
−292%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 56
+300%
14−16
−300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+313%
8−9
−313%
Far Cry New Dawn 31
+288%
8−9
−288%
Hitman 3 25
+317%
6−7
−317%
Horizon Zero Dawn 66
+313%
16−18
−313%
Metro Exodus 44
+340%
10−11
−340%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+300%
10−11
−300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24
+300%
6−7
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18
+350%
4−5
−350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 19
+280%
5−6
−280%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+450%
2−3
−450%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+286%
14−16
−286%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 44
+340%
10−11
−340%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12
+300%
3−4
−300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 28
+300%
7−8
−300%

This is how GTX 1660 Super and Tesla C2075 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Super is 288% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 300% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 329% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.04 8.72
Recency 29 October 2019 25 July 2011
Chip lithography 12 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 247 Watt

GTX 1660 Super has a 278.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 97.6% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2075 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Super 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super
GeForce GTX 1660 Super
NVIDIA Tesla C2075
Tesla C2075

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 19566 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Super on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 29 votes

Rate Tesla C2075 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.