AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark recorded between the AMD FirePro W4300 and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. The AMD card wins by a delta of 7.9%, a notable margin in compute workloads. This translates to the AMD FirePro W4300 being the outright winner in this comparison, with a 1–0 record in benchmark wins.

To contextualize the AMD FirePro W4300’s score, its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, which posts an average score of 11,228 (a 0% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M at 11,261 (a -0.3% delta, meaning the FirePro trails by a hair). More interestingly, the FirePro W4300 is 1.2% ahead of both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, both of which score 11,088. This places the FirePro W4300 in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, a solid mid-pack position.

On the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 side, its nearest rivals paint a slightly different picture. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 10,362, which is 0.4% behind the Tesla, meaning the Tesla leads that matchup. The AMD Radeon RX 550X scores 10,481, putting the Tesla 0.8% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273, with the Tesla ahead by 1.2%. Finally, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X scores 10,582, giving the Tesla a 1.7% deficit. The Tesla C2075 sits in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, two percentile points below the AMD card.

The delta of 7.9% between the two cards is significant in compute terms. The AMD FirePro W4300 delivers roughly 8% more OpenCL throughput than the Tesla C2075. Given that the Tesla C2075 was designed for high-performance computing, this is a meaningful gap, especially considering the architectural and generational differences that will be explored later. The data shows a clear, if modest, victory for the AMD card in the only benchmark available.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and by how much?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11,225 against the NVIDIA Tesla C2075’s 10,400, a delta of 7.9%.

Q: How does the AMD FirePro W4300 compare to its closest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200?

A: The FirePro W4300 scores 11,225, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228, resulting in a 0% delta – they are effectively tied in average benchmark performance.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU among all GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 sits in the 50th percentile, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is in the 48th percentile.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 beat any of its nearest rivals?

A: Yes, the Tesla C2075 is ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M by 0.4% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A by 1.2%, though it trails the AMD Radeon RX 550X by 0.8% and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X by 1.7%.

Q: What are the memory capacities and bus widths of the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS, compared to the NVIDIA Tesla C2075’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural eras. The AMD FirePro W4300 is built on the GCN 2.0 architecture, specifically using the Bonaire chip, and belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 160 mm² and 2,080 million transistors. This yields a transistor density of 13.0M per mm². The NVIDIA Tesla C2075, in contrast, uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF110 chip, belonging to the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation. It is built on a 40 nm process at the same foundry, TSMC, but has a much larger die of 520 mm² and 3,000 million transistors, resulting in a lower density of 5.8M per mm².

These architectural choices directly impact compute capabilities. The AMD card features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The NVIDIA card has fewer shading units at 448, but more TMUs at 56 and significantly more ROPs at 48. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. In terms of raw throughput, the AMD FirePro W4300 achieves a pixel rate of 14.88 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 44.64 GTexel/s. The Tesla C2075 achieves a higher pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s but a lower texture rate of 32.14 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance strongly favors the AMD card: 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA card. Neither card lists FP16 performance.

The process node difference is stark: 28 nm versus 40 nm. This explains the AMD card’s higher transistor density despite having fewer total transistors. The architectural gap also shows in API support. The AMD FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but lists no Vulkan support. The memory clocks also differ: the AMD card runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA card runs at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), which underscores the generational leap in memory technology.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two cards differ are numerous. The process node differs: 28 nm for the AMD FirePro W4300 versus 40 nm for the NVIDIA Tesla C2075. Transistor counts are 2,080 million versus 3,000 million, and die sizes are 160 mm² versus 520 mm². Transistor density is 13.0M per mm² versus 5.8M per mm². Memory configurations differ: 4 GB versus 6 GB, both GDDR5, but with bus widths of 128 bit versus 384 bit. Memory bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s for the AMD card and 150.3 GB/s for the NVIDIA card. Memory clock speeds are 1500 MHz versus 783 MHz.

The compute units also diverge: shading units are 768 versus 448, TMUs are 48 versus 56, and ROPs are 16 versus 48. Pixel rate is 14.88 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s, while texture rate is 44.64 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The TDP is dramatically different: 50 W for the AMD card versus 247 W for the NVIDIA card. This impacts physical design, as the AMD card is single-slot with no power connectors, while the NVIDIA card is dual-slot and requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the AMD card versus 550 W for the NVIDIA card.

The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the AMD card versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the NVIDIA card. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the AMD card versus 1x DVI for the NVIDIA card. Physical dimensions differ: the AMD card is 171 mm (6.7 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, while the NVIDIA card is 248 mm (9.8 inches) long with no listed height. The DirectX support differs (12_0 versus 11_0), and Vulkan support is present on the AMD card but absent on the NVIDIA card. Release dates are far apart: 2015-11-30 for the AMD card versus 2011-07-24 for the NVIDIA card. The predecessor and successor names also differ: the AMD card’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale and successor is Radeon Pro GCN, while the NVIDIA card’s predecessor is Tesla and successor is Tesla Kepler.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD FirePro W4300 wins the only head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 11,225 against the NVIDIA Tesla C2075’s 10,400, a 7.9% advantage. The AMD card also holds a higher percentile ranking (50th versus 48th) and delivers superior FP32 compute (1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS). It achieves this while consuming only 50 W of power, compared to 247 W for the NVIDIA card, and requires no external power connectors versus the 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin needed by the Tesla.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075, however, is not without its strengths. It offers more memory (6 GB versus 4 GB), a wider memory bus (384 bit versus 128 bit), and substantially higher memory bandwidth (150.3 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s). It also has a higher pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s) and more ROPs (48 versus 16). These factors could matter for specific workloads that are memory-bound or require high fill rates.

For compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, the data favors the AMD FirePro W4300. Its higher FP32 throughput and better benchmark score make it the more capable compute card in this comparison. For tasks that rely heavily on memory bandwidth or require larger frame buffers, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075’s 6 GB memory and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth could be advantageous. The AMD card’s lower power draw and smaller footprint also make it easier to integrate into dense systems. Ultimately, the choice depends on whether raw compute or memory capacity is the priority, but the benchmark winner is clearly the AMD FirePro W4300.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins in overall compute performance, as evidenced by its 7.9% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test. It also wins in FP32 throughput, delivering 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS, a 39% advantage. Its texture rate is higher (44.64 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s), making it better suited for texture-heavy workloads. The AMD card is also far more power-efficient, with a 50 W TDP versus 247 W, and it supports newer APIs including Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0). Its modern PCIe 3.0 interface and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it more flexible for display and connectivity needs.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins in memory capacity, offering 6 GB versus 4 GB, and in memory bandwidth, with 150.3 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. Its 384-bit bus is three times wider than the AMD card’s 128-bit bus, which can be critical for large datasets that fit within the 6 GB frame buffer. The Tesla also has a higher pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s) and more ROPs (48 versus 16), giving it an edge in pixel-heavy rendering tasks. Its 56 TMUs are also more numerous than the AMD card’s 48, though the AMD card’s higher texture rate indicates better per-TMU efficiency.

In practical terms, the AMD FirePro W4300 is the better choice for general compute, OpenCL workloads, and energy-conscious deployments. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is preferable for memory-bound applications that require large frame buffers or extremely high bandwidth, such as certain scientific simulations or large matrix operations. The data does not show any scenario where the Tesla wins a benchmark, but its memory advantages are clear from the specifications. Users needing modern API support and lower power consumption should lean toward the AMD card, while those prioritizing raw memory throughput may still consider the older NVIDIA card.