AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 and NVIDIA Tesla C2075 are both end-of-life workstation-oriented GPUs, but they represent radically different eras and design philosophies. The Radeon Pro 450 is a modern, low-power mobile chip built for Apple’s MacBook Pro lineup, while the Tesla C2075 is a legacy compute accelerator from NVIDIA’s Fermi generation. Benchmark data shows the older Tesla card still holds a significant edge in raw compute workloads, but the Radeon’s architectural efficiency and modern API support make it the more versatile option for contemporary applications.

Where Each One Wins

The data clearly splits these two cards into distinct use-case categories. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 10,400 against the AMD Radeon Pro 450’s 9,002—a 13.4% advantage for the Tesla. This makes the Tesla the stronger choice for pure compute offload, particularly in environments that leverage OpenCL for scientific simulation, data processing, or other GPGPU tasks. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus provides 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is nearly double the Radeon’s 81.28 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads, that bandwidth advantage is decisive.

However, the Radeon Pro 450 wins on versatility and modern software compatibility. It posts a Geekbench Metal score of 12,893 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,518, while the Tesla C2075 has no recorded results for either API. The Tesla’s Vulkan support is listed as null, and its DirectX support is limited to 12 (11_0), whereas the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. For users running modern graphics applications, game engines, or Metal-accelerated macOS software, the Radeon Pro 450 is the only viable option. The Tesla’s single DVI output and lack of modern display connectivity further cement its role as a headless compute card, not a general-purpose graphics solution.

The Radeon also wins on power efficiency. Its TDP is 35 W compared to the Tesla’s 247 W—a sevenfold difference. This makes the Radeon suitable for portable devices and compact MXM modules, while the Tesla requires a dual-slot cooler, a 550 W suggested PSU, and both 6-pin and 8-pin power connectors. In thermal-constrained or mobile environments, the Radeon is the only practical choice.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs are separated by five years of process technology and fundamentally different design goals. The AMD Radeon Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The die is a compact 123 mm², housing 3,000 million transistors at a density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. This modern node allows for high clock speeds and extreme efficiency, all within a 35 W power envelope.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075, in contrast, uses the GF110 chip based on Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The die is substantially larger at 520 mm², also containing 3,000 million transistors but at a much lower density of 5.8 million per square millimeter. This older, larger process explains the Tesla’s high 247 W TDP and dual-slot cooling requirement.

Core configurations differ significantly. The Radeon Pro 450 packs 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Tesla C2075 has fewer shading units at 448, but more TMUs (56) and significantly more ROPs (48). This translates to different throughput characteristics: the Tesla has a higher pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s for the Radeon, while texture rates are nearly identical at 32.14 GTexel/s versus 32.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is also close, with the Tesla at 1,027.7 GFLOPS and the Radeon at 1,024.0 GFLOPS. However, the Radeon supports FP16 at 1,024.0 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Tesla has no FP16 capability listed.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Radeon uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the Tesla offers 6 GB on a 384-bit bus. The Tesla’s memory clock is lower at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) compared to the Radeon’s 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), but the wider bus gives the Tesla 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth versus 81.28 GB/s. The Radeon connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The Tesla’s predecessor is listed as "Tesla" and its successor as "Tesla Kepler," indicating a clear product line evolution, whereas the Radeon Pro 450 belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) generation with no listed predecessor or successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins the OpenCL benchmark with a score of 10,400, which is 13.4% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 450’s 9,002. This aligns with the Tesla’s slightly higher FP32 throughput of 1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 450 support modern graphics APIs that the Tesla C2075 lacks?

A: Yes. The Radeon Pro 450 supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan support listed and only DirectX 12 (11_0). The Radeon also has Geekbench Metal and Vulkan scores (12,893 and 10,518 respectively), while the Tesla has no recorded results for either test.

Q: How do their memory capacities and bandwidth compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 81.28 GB/s. The Tesla’s bandwidth is roughly 85% higher.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 has a 35 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width with no external power connectors. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has a 247 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler, uses 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card is more efficient in terms of transistor density?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 is far more efficient, packing 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die for a density of 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The Tesla C2075 also has 3,000 million transistors but on a 520 mm² die, yielding only 5.8 million per square millimeter.

Q: What is the production status and release timeline for these GPUs?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The AMD Radeon Pro 450 was released on 2016-10-29, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is older, released on 2011-07-24. The Tesla’s predecessor is listed as "Tesla" and its successor as "Tesla Kepler."

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 450 | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 5.8M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 448 |

| TMUs | 40 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.80 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.00 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,024.0 GFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1) | null |

| TDP | 35 W | 247 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | null | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | null | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | null |

| Release Date | 2016-10-29 | 2011-07-24 |

| Length | null | 248 mm (9.8 inches) |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it decisively favors the older NVIDIA card. The Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 against the Radeon Pro 450’s 9,002, a delta of -13.4% for the AMD part. This result is consistent with the raw specifications: the Tesla’s FP32 output of 1,027.7 GFLOPS edges out the Radeon’s 1,024.0 GFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s is substantially higher than 81.28 GB/s. For OpenCL compute tasks that scale with memory throughput, the Tesla’s 384-bit bus and 6 GB frame buffer provide a clear advantage.

However, the benchmark picture is incomplete without considering the Radeon’s additional scores. The Radeon Pro 450 achieves 12,893 in Geekbench Metal and 10,518 in Geekbench Vulkan—tests that the Tesla C2075 cannot run due to missing API support. This is not a marginal difference; it is a categorical absence. The Tesla’s DirectX support is limited to 12 (11_0), which means it cannot fully utilize modern graphics pipelines. The Radeon’s average benchmark score across all tests is 10,804, placing it in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla’s average is 10,400, placing it in the 48th percentile.

The nearest rivals reinforce the positioning. The Radeon Pro 450 sits close to the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (0.4% delta), NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (-0.7% delta), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (1.1% delta), and AMD Radeon RX 6600S (1.7% delta). The Tesla C2075 is similarly clustered around the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (0.4% delta), AMD Radeon RX 550X (-0.8% delta), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (1.2% delta), and AMD Radeon R9 M275X (-1.7% delta). Neither card is a performance outlier in its respective peer group, but the Tesla’s OpenCL win is the single most decisive metric in this head-to-head. For users who need OpenCL compute and can tolerate the power and space requirements, the Tesla C2075 is the stronger performer. For everyone else, the Radeon Pro 450’s modern API support and 35 W power draw make it the more practical and future-proof option.