AMD Radeon 890M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and the AMD Radeon 890M represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The Tesla C2075 is a discrete compute-oriented card from the Fermi generation, built on a 40 nm process, while the 890M is a modern integrated graphics processor (IGP) from the RDNA 3.5 family, manufactured on a 4 nm node. Benchmark data in the database reveals a clear performance gulf between these two, driven by fundamental differences in architecture, power envelope, and intended use case.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark recorded in the database for both products is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the results are decisively one-sided. The AMD Radeon 890M scores 37,254 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 points. This represents a delta of -72.1% for the Tesla C2075 relative to the 890M, meaning the AMD part delivers over 3.5 times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The 890M’s score is not merely higher; it is in a different performance class entirely, reflecting the massive generational leap in shader efficiency and clock speeds.

To contextualize the Tesla C2075’s 10,400 OpenCL score, the database places it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (average score 10,362, delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273, delta 1.2%), and the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481, delta -0.8%). The C2075 sits essentially at par with these mid-range mobile and entry-level desktop parts from a much later era. Its performance is within a narrow band of roughly 1.7% around these rivals, indicating that while it was a high-end compute card in 2011, its absolute OpenCL performance has since been matched by far less specialized hardware.

For the AMD Radeon 890M, the OpenCL score of 37,254 is complemented by a broader benchmark suite. The database shows a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 590, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 40,808, and a Passmark G3D score of 8,076. The 890M’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 9,210. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (average 9,221, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9,273, delta -0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9,294, delta -0.9%). This places the 890M at the 45th percentile of all GPUs, with its average score tightly clustered within 1% of these discrete desktop cards from previous generations. The 890M’s Vulkan score of 40,808 is particularly notable, as it exceeds its own OpenCL result, suggesting strong driver optimization and hardware scheduling for modern graphics APIs.

The critical takeaway from the head-to-head data is that the 890M wins the sole direct comparison by a wide margin. The Tesla C2075, despite its 6 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory and 384-bit bus, cannot compete with the 890M’s integrated design, which leverages system memory and a much higher clocked architecture. The delta of -72.1% is not a marginal difference; it is a dominant victory for the AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is starkly defined by the recorded benchmarks. The AMD Radeon 890M wins in every scenario where modern graphics and compute workloads are present. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 37,254 demonstrates superior general-purpose compute, while its Vulkan score of 40,808 indicates strong performance in low-level, high-throughput graphics APIs. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 590, while not directly comparable to the Tesla C2075, shows the 890M handles contemporary DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads, a feature class the C2075 cannot claim. Additionally, the 890M’s Passmark G3D score of 8,076 and GPU compute score of 4,157 show consistent strength across synthetic gaming and compute tests.

The passmark scores for the 890M reveal a nuanced picture across DirectX versions. It scores 97 in Passmark DirectX 9, 73 in DirectX 11, 33 in DirectX 10, and 37 in DirectX 12. These lower absolute numbers reflect the synthetic nature of those specific tests rather than a weakness, but they do indicate that the 890M’s performance scales with API modernity. The DirectX 9 score of 97 is the highest among its own Passmark DX results, which is typical for modern architectures that optimize for newer APIs but still retain legacy support.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has no recorded wins in any benchmark within the database. Its only benchmark is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 10,400, which is outperformed by the 890M. The C2075 does offer a dedicated 6 GB of GDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s, a feature that could theoretically benefit workloads with large, static datasets that fit within that frame buffer. However, the database contains no benchmark results to substantiate a win in such a scenario. The C2075’s architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but it lacks Vulkan support, which severely limits its relevance in modern cross-platform applications.

For users prioritizing legacy compute tasks that rely on Fermi’s specific instruction set or require a discrete card with dedicated VRAM, the C2075 retains some theoretical utility. Its 448 shading units and 48 ROPs, combined with a pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 32.14 GTexel/s, are all figures that were competitive in its era. Yet, without a benchmark win in the database, any advantage remains speculative rather than measured.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD Radeon 890M as the superior performer in every measured metric. The 890M’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 37,254 is 3.5 times higher than the Tesla C2075’s 10,400, and its average benchmark score of 9,210 places it within 1% of discrete GPUs like the GTX 960 and GTX 465. The 890M also benefits from a modern feature set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and 16 ray tracing cores, none of which the C2075 possesses. For any user considering compute performance, modern API compatibility, or energy efficiency, the 890M is the clear choice.

The Tesla C2075, with a percentile rank of 48 and a single benchmark score of 10,400, is a product of its time. Its nearest rivals, the RX 6500M and GTX 950A, are all newer parts that match its performance, indicating the C2075 has been overtaken by subsequent generations. The C2075’s 247 W TDP and dual-slot form factor with a 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connector are further liabilities compared to the 890M’s 15 W TDP and integrated IGP design, which requires no external power connectors.

The verdict is straightforward: the AMD Radeon 890M is the superior product across all recorded benchmarks. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 should only be considered by users with specific legacy requirements, such as proprietary software that relies on Fermi-era compute capabilities or a need for dedicated VRAM in a non-gaming compute context. For all modern workloads, the 890M’s performance, API support, and power efficiency make it the only sensible selection based on the data.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 890M than the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon 890M scores 37,254 points, which is 72.1% higher than the Tesla C2075’s score of 10,400. This translates to roughly 3.5 times the raw performance in this benchmark.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 win any benchmarks against the 890M?

A: No. The database records only one head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD Radeon 890M wins that test. The Tesla C2075 has zero benchmark wins in the recorded data.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Tesla C2075 has an average benchmark score of 10,400, based on its single OpenCL result. The AMD Radeon 890M has an average score of 9,210 across all its recorded benchmarks, which includes multiple tests like 3DMark and Passmark.

Q: How does the 890M compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The 890M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 8, with an average score of 9,221, a delta of -0.1%. It is also within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9,273) and 0.9% of the GTX 465 (9,294). This shows the 890M performs at par with these discrete cards.

Q: What architectural features does the 890M have that the C2075 lacks?

A: The 890M has 16 ray tracing cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, and has a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The Tesla C2075 lacks ray tracing cores, has no Vulkan support, and its architecture is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 550 W. The AMD Radeon 890M has a TDP of only 15 W and requires no power connectors, as it is an integrated GPU.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and AMD Radeon 890M are built on fundamentally different architectures, processes, and design philosophies. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip, based on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a die size of 520 mm², yielding a transistor density of 5.8M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon 890M uses the Strix Point chip, based on RDNA 3.5, also fabricated by TSMC but on a high-end 4 nm process. This chip contains 34,000 million transistors on a much smaller die of 233 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 145.9M per mm². The density difference is staggering: the 890M packs over 25 times more transistors per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems differ drastically. The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s and a memory clock of 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). The 890M, being an IGP, uses system shared memory, meaning its size, bus width, and bandwidth are system dependent. This is a critical distinction: the C2075 offers dedicated, high-bandwidth VRAM, while the 890M relies on the host system’s memory, which can be a bottleneck or an advantage depending on the platform.

Compute resources also diverge. The C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 render output units (ROPs). Its FP32 performance is 1,027.7 GFLOPS, with a pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 32.14 GTexel/s. The 890M, by comparison, has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its FP32 performance is 5.939 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance is also 5.939 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The 890M’s pixel rate is 92.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 185.6 GTexel/s. The 890M also includes 16 ray tracing cores, which the C2075 completely lacks. In terms of raw throughput, the 890M delivers over 5.7 times the FP32 performance of the C2075.

Clock speeds further separate the two. The C2075 has no recorded base or boost clock, only its memory clock. The 890M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, allowing it to reach high frequencies under load. The power envelopes are polar opposites: the C2075 has a TDP of 247 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and uses a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector with a suggested 550 W PSU. The 890M has a TDP of 15 W, is an IGP with no slot width, and requires no power connectors. This makes the 890M vastly more energy-efficient, delivering over 5.7 times the performance while drawing only about 6% of the power.

API support also highlights the generational gap. The C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The 890M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it fully compatible with modern graphics standards. The C2075’s bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16, while the 890M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which offers higher bandwidth per lane. The C2075 has a single DVI display output, whereas the 890M’s display outputs are portable device dependent, reflecting its role in mobile and integrated systems.

The production status and release dates further contextualize these products. The Tesla C2075 was released on July 24, 2011, and is end-of-life, with its successor being Tesla Kepler. The AMD Radeon 890M was released on July 14, 2024, is active, and has no successor, with its predecessor being Navi II IGP. The 890M represents the latest in integrated graphics, while the C2075 is a relic of the Fermi era. The architectural differences are not merely incremental; they represent a complete paradigm shift in how GPUs are designed, from large discrete compute cards to small, power-efficient integrated processors with advanced feature sets.