GPU Comparison

The data presents a close contest between two professional workstation GPUs from different design philosophies. Benchmark results show the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 achieving a Geekbench OpenCL score of 10,400, placing it 6.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000’s score of 9,803. While the Tesla C2075 wins the single head-to-head benchmark included, the FirePro W5000 counters with substantial architectural and efficiency advantages. The percentile rankings confirm their proximity: the Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W5000 is just one point behind at the 47th percentile.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision based on workload priorities. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is the choice for users prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL, as it leads the included benchmark by 6.1% with a score of 10,400 versus 9,803. Its 6 GB GDDR5 memory capacity, three times the FirePro’s 2 GB, makes it the better option for datasets that exceed 2 GB, a critical factor for large-scale scientific computing or rendering scenes that cannot fit in smaller memory pools.

The AMD FirePro W5000 is the more practical card for general workstation use, based on its dramatically lower power requirements and physical footprint. With a TDP of 75 W compared to the Tesla C2075’s 247 W, the FirePro W5000 requires no auxiliary power connectors and a suggested PSU of only 250 W, versus the Tesla’s 550 W suggestion and dual 6-pin plus 8-pin power connectors. Its single-slot design (183 mm length) also contrasts with the Tesla’s dual-slot, 248 mm length, making it far easier to install in space-constrained systems. Furthermore, the FirePro W5000 offers modern display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2) compared to the Tesla’s single DVI, making it more functional as a daily driver for multi-monitor setups.

Strictly from the data, the verdict is: choose the Tesla C2075 for compute-heavy tasks that benefit from its 6 GB memory and higher OpenCL score; choose the FirePro W5000 for energy-efficient, space-saving workstation use with superior display connectivity.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark comparison shows one decisive category: the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins outright with 10,400 points against the AMD FirePro W5000’s 9,803 points, a 6.1% margin. This is the only head-to-head benchmark listed, and it favors the Tesla.

However, the FirePro W5000 wins in several non-benchmark categories implied by the specification data. Its 768 shading units exceed the Tesla’s 448, and its theoretical peak FP32 performance is higher at 1,267.2 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The texture rate also favors AMD: 39.60 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. The pixel rate shows a similar pattern, with the FirePro W5000 achieving 26.40 GPixel/s against the Tesla’s 16.07 GPixel/s. These numbers suggest that in workloads that are not captured by the single OpenCL test, such as geometry processing or texture-heavy rendering, the FirePro W5000 may hold an advantage. Additionally, the FirePro W5000 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a feature entirely absent from the Tesla C2075’s API list.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different GPU architectures from their respective manufacturers. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 40 nm process. This is an older, larger design with 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.8M per mm². In contrast, the AMD FirePro W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s newer 28 nm process. It packs 2,800 million transistors into a much smaller 212 mm² die, yielding a substantially higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm².

These architectural differences manifest in core configuration. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The FirePro W5000 counters with 768 shading units (71% more), but fewer TMUs (48) and ROPs (32). The memory subsystems also differ: the Tesla uses a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro uses a narrower 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla’s memory clock is 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), while the FirePro’s is 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). Notably, both cards are end-of-life products, with the Tesla released on July 24, 2011, and the FirePro on August 6, 2012. Their API support reflects their ages: both support DirectX 12 (with the Tesla at 11_0 feature level and the FirePro at 11_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the FirePro lists Vulkan support.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 6.1% higher than the AMD FirePro W5000’s score of 9,803.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the FirePro W5000 has 2 GB. The Tesla’s memory bandwidth is also higher at 150.3 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, due to its wider 384-bit bus versus the FirePro’s 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card requires less power?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, with no power connectors needed. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W, requires a 550 W PSU, and needs both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector.

Q: Are there differences in shader core counts?

A: Yes. The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, significantly more than the Tesla C2075’s 448. The Tesla has more TMUs (56 vs. 48) and ROPs (48 vs. 32), but the FirePro has higher theoretical FP32 performance (1,267.2 GFLOPS vs. 1,027.7 GFLOPS).

Q: Which card offers better display connectivity?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 offers only a single DVI output, making it less suited for multi-monitor configurations.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The Tesla C2075 is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm (9.8 inches) in length. The FirePro W5000 is a single-slot card measuring 183 mm (7.2 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, making it significantly more compact.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 records a score of 10,400, while the AMD FirePro W5000 records 9,803. The delta is 6.1% in favor of the Tesla. This result is consistent with the nearest rival data for each card. The Tesla C2075’s closest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362, +0.4% for the Tesla) and the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481, -0.8% for the Tesla), indicating it sits in a narrow performance band. The FirePro W5000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, +0.2% for the FirePro) and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846, -0.4% for the FirePro), showing it is equally competitive within its own cluster.

The 6.1% edge for the Tesla C2075 is notable but not overwhelming. In practical terms, this means the Tesla is roughly 6% faster in this specific OpenCL workload. However, the FirePro W5000’s higher theoretical peak FP32 (1,267.2 GFLOPS) and pixel rate (26.40 GPixel/s) suggest that the AMD card may outperform in other unmeasured tasks. The data records 1 win for the Tesla and 0 for the FirePro in head-to-head benchmarks, but this single test does not capture the broader performance picture. The Tesla’s 48th percentile ranking versus the FirePro’s 47th percentile underscores how closely matched these two cards are overall.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and the AMD FirePro W5000:

• Chip: GF110 (NVIDIA) vs. Pitcairn (AMD)
• Architecture: Fermi 2.0 vs. GCN 1.0
• Generation: Tesla Fermi (x20xx) vs. FirePro GCN (Wx000)
• Process node: 40 nm vs. 28 nm
• Transistors: 3,000 million vs. 2,800 million
• Die size: 520 mm² vs. 212 mm²
• Transistor density: 5.8M / mm² vs. 13.2M / mm²
• Memory clock: 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) vs. 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 6 GB vs. 2 GB
• Memory bus width: 384 bit vs. 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 150.3 GB/s vs. 102.4 GB/s
• Shading units: 448 vs. 768
• TMUs: 56 vs. 48
• ROPs: 48 vs. 32
• Pixel rate: 16.07 GPixel/s vs. 26.40 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 32.14 GTexel/s vs. 39.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,027.7 GFLOPS vs. 1,267.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 247 W vs. 75 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot vs. Single-slot
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs. None
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs. 250 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs. PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x DVI vs. 1x DVI + 2x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) vs. 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan support: None vs. 1.2.170
• Dimensions: 248 mm length vs. 183 mm length, 111 mm height
• Release date: July 24, 2011 vs. August 6, 2012
• Predecessor: Tesla vs. FirePro Terascale
• Successor: Tesla Kepler vs. Radeon Pro Polaris
• Launch MSRP: None listed vs. 599 USD (stated once here as launch MSRP)