AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects a decisive generational gap. The Radeon Pro 5500M is the clear overall winner, delivering roughly triple the performance of the Tesla C2075 in the only shared benchmark, while also offering a more modern feature set and significantly higher efficiency. The Tesla C2075, however, holds its own as a legacy compute-oriented card with a much larger memory bus and higher raw memory capacity per dollar of that era, but its architectural age leaves it far behind in practical application performance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M wins in every measurable performance category where both cards have data. Its single head-to-head benchmark result in Geekbench OpenCL shows a 198.9% advantage over the Tesla C2075, meaning it scores nearly three times higher. This is a comprehensive victory in raw compute throughput, which is the primary metric for both of these professional-grade cards.

The Radeon Pro 5500M also wins on architectural efficiency and modern API support. With a 7 nm process node compared to Tesla's 40 nm, the AMD card achieves its performance at 85 W TDP versus 247 W for NVIDIA, making it far more power-efficient. The Radeon supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Tesla is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16, and the AMD card offers Vulkan 1.4 support where the Tesla has none. For any modern workload, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the only viable option.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its only listed benchmark is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 10400, which is less than one-third of the AMD card's score. However, the Tesla does win on memory bus width with a 384-bit interface versus 128-bit on the AMD, and it has a higher number of ROPs (48 vs 32). These specifications suggest the Tesla might be better suited for certain memory-bandwidth-heavy legacy applications, but the actual bandwidth figure (150.3 GB/s) is lower than the AMD card's 192.0 GB/s, negating this advantage in practice.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is the superior product for virtually any use case. Its average benchmark score of 11528 places it at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile with an average score of 10400. The Radeon Pro 5500M is 198.9% ahead in the shared Geekbench OpenCL test, a margin so large that no other metric can overcome it.

Pick the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M if you need modern compute performance, low power consumption, or support for current APIs like Vulkan. The data shows it is 30% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 in average score (11528 vs 11680, deltaPct -1.3), and it is competitive with the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT, which scores 11627, a deltaPct of only -0.8. This places the Radeon Pro 5500M in a performance tier that is entirely out of reach for the Tesla.

Pick the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 only if you have a legacy application that specifically requires its unique combination of 6 GB of memory on a 384-bit bus, or if you need a dual-slot card with 1x DVI output. The Tesla's 48 ROPs are 50% more than the AMD card's 32, which could matter for certain pixel-bound tasks. But even then, the Tesla's 16.07 GPixel/s pixel rate is far below the Radeon's 46.40 GPixel/s, so this theoretical advantage does not translate to real-world wins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are striking. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 31,088, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. This is a deltaPct of 198.9% in favor of AMD, meaning the Radeon is roughly 2.99 times faster. For context, this is a larger performance gap than the difference between the Tesla C2075 and its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, which scores 10362 with a deltaPct of 0.4.

This single result tells the story of the entire comparison. The Radeon Pro 5500M's FP32 throughput is 4.454 TFLOPS, while the Tesla C2075 manages just 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). The Radeon's texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s is more than four times the Tesla's 32.14 GTexel/s. Even the Radeon's pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s is nearly three times the Tesla's 16.07 GPixel/s.

The AMD card also has significantly more shading units (1536 vs 448) and texture mapping units (96 vs 56), which explains the massive compute advantage. The Tesla's only numerical win is in ROP count (48 vs 32), but this is insufficient to compensate for the 4.3x advantage in shader count and the 2.4x advantage in memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s vs 150.3 GB/s).

FAQ

Q: Which card has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M has an average benchmark score of 11528, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10400. The Radeon also wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 198.9% (31088 vs 10400).

Q: How do these cards compare in terms of power efficiency?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M has a TDP of 85 W, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W. This means the AMD card delivers significantly higher performance per watt, as it achieves nearly 3x the OpenCL score at roughly one-third the power draw.

Q: Which card has more memory and memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth on a wider 384-bit bus. The AMD card wins on both capacity and bandwidth.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is within 1.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11680) and 0.8% of the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11627). The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10362) and 1.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10273).

Q: Which card is more modern in architecture?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M uses the RDNA 1.0 architecture on a 7 nm process with 6,400 million transistors. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture on a 40 nm process with 3,000 million transistors. The Radeon is also released later, in November 2019 versus July 2011.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 40.5 million per mm². The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip with Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a much larger 520 mm² die, with a transistor density of just 5.8 million per mm².

This architectural gap explains the performance difference. The Radeon Pro 5500M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, enabling 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 8.909 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, delivering only 1,027.7 GFLOPS FP32 and no FP16 support. The Radeon's memory subsystem uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the Tesla uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus.

The Radeon Pro 5500M supports modern interfaces including PCIe 4.0 x8 and the full API stack of DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla C2075 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16, DirectX 12 (11_0), and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support. The Radeon also has a portable-device-dependent display output, while the Tesla has a fixed 1x DVI output.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5500M | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 |

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

| Process Node | 7 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 5.8M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 448 |

| TMUs | 96 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| FP32 | 4.454 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 85 W | 247 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | null | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | null |

| Slot Width | null | Dual-slot |

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

| Release Date | 2019-11-12 | 2011-07-24 |