Tesla C2075
VS
GeForce GTX 560 Ti

Tesla C2075 vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti

NVIDIA

Tesla C2075

2011Core: 574 MHz
VS
NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 560 Ti

2011Core: 823 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

About G3D Mark

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla C2075.

InsightTesla C2075GeForce GTX 560 Ti
Performance
Lower raw frame rates (-2.1%)
Leading raw performance (+2.1%)
Longevity
🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014))
🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014))
Ecosystem
Supports FSR Upscaling
Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM
❌ Less VRAM capacity
✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency
⚡ Higher Power Consumption
💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit
📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti holds the technical lead. Priced at $50 (vs $500), it costs 90% less, resulting in a 920.9% higher cost efficiency score.

InsightTesla C2075GeForce GTX 560 Ti
Cost Efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Better overall value (+920.9%)
Upfront Cost
⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500)
More affordable ($50)

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Tesla C2075 and GeForce GTX 560 Ti

NVIDIA

Tesla C2075

The Tesla C2075 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 25 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 574 MHz. It has 448 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 247W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,017 points.

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 560 Ti

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 25 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 823 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 160W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,080 points. Launch price was $249.

Graphics Performance

The Tesla C2075 scores 3,017 and the GeForce GTX 560 Ti reaches 3,080 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla C2075 is built on Fermi 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 560 Ti uses Fermi 2.0, both on a 40 nm process. Shader units: 448 (Tesla C2075) vs 384 (GeForce GTX 560 Ti). Raw compute: 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2075) vs 1.263 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 560 Ti).

FeatureTesla C2075GeForce GTX 560 Ti
G3D Mark Score
3,017
3,080+2%
Architecture
Fermi 2.0
Fermi 2.0
Process Node
40 nm
40 nm
Shading Units
448+17%
384
Compute (TFLOPS)
1.028 TFLOPS
1.263 TFLOPS+23%
ROPs
48+50%
32
TMUs
56
64+14%
L1 Cache
896 KB+75%
512 KB
L2 Cache
768 KB+50%
512 KB

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

FeatureTesla C2075GeForce GTX 560 Ti
Upscaling Tech
FSR 1.0 (Software)
FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation
Not Supported
FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction
No
No
Low Latency
Standard
Standard
💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 768 KB (Tesla C2075) vs 512 KB (GeForce GTX 560 Ti) — the Tesla C2075 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureTesla C2075GeForce GTX 560 Ti
VRAM Capacity
2 GB
2 GB
Memory Type
GDDR5
GDDR5
Bus Width
64-bit
256-bit+300%
L2 Cache
768 KB+50%
512 KB
🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (Tesla C2075) vs 11_0 (GeForce GTX 560 Ti). Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.

FeatureTesla C2075GeForce GTX 560 Ti
DirectX
12 (11_0)+9%
11_0
Max Displays
1
2+100%
🎬

Media & Encoding

Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (Tesla C2075) vs H.264 (GeForce GTX 560 Ti).

FeatureTesla C2075GeForce GTX 560 Ti
Encoder
NVENC 1st Gen
Decoder
NVDEC 1st Gen
Codecs
H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2
H.264
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Tesla C2075 draws 247W versus the GeForce GTX 560 Ti's 160W — a 42.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla C2075) vs 500W (GeForce GTX 560 Ti). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 2x 6-pin.

FeatureTesla C2075GeForce GTX 560 Ti
TDP
247W
160W-35%
Recommended PSU
350W-30%
500W
Power Connector
PCIe-powered
2x 6-pin
Length
229mm
Slots
2
2
Temp (Load)
85°C
Perf/Watt
12.2
19.3+58%
💰

Value Analysis

The Tesla C2075 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the GeForce GTX 560 Ti launched at $249 and now averages $50. The GeForce GTX 560 Ti costs 90% less ($450 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 6.0 (Tesla C2075) vs 61.6 (GeForce GTX 560 Ti) — the GeForce GTX 560 Ti offers 926.7% better value.

FeatureTesla C2075GeForce GTX 560 Ti
MSRP
$0-100%
$249
Avg Price (30d)
$500
$50-90%
Performance per Dollar
6.0
61.6+927%
Codename
GF110
GF114
Release
July 25 2011
January 25 2011
Ranking
#553
#580