NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M and NVIDIA Tesla C2075 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 7 month(s) later
• Around 66% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 575 MHz
• 3.9x more texture fill rate: 127.1 GTexel / s vs 32.2 GTexel / s
• 3.4x more pipelines: 1536 vs 448
• 3x better floating-point performance: 3,050 gflops vs 1,030.4 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• 2x lower typical power consumption: 122 Watt vs 247 Watt
• Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 6 GB
• Around 25% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3783 vs 3017
• Around 52% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 15023 vs 9885
• Around 28% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 34.42 vs 26.973
• Around 25% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.915 vs 3.142
• Around 59% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4501 vs 2825
• Around 59% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4501 vs 2825

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Tesla C2075

• Around 29% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 428 vs 332
• Around 20% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 930.623 vs 776.776
• Around 25% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 45.924 vs 36.688
• Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 93.747 vs 82.511

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Tesla C2075

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3783 3017
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	332 428
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	15023 9885
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	34.42 26.973
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	776.776 930.623
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.915 3.142
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	36.688 45.924
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	82.511 93.747
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4501 2825
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3718 3705
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3356 3346
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4501 2825
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3718 3705
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3356 3346

Compare specifications (specs)