AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by six years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear split: the Tesla C2075 dominates in raw compute throughput, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 counters with modern features and vastly superior efficiency. This head-to-head analysis relies solely on the benchmark and specification data provided.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it decisively favors the older NVIDIA card. The Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 points against the Radeon Pro WX 2100’s 8,536 points, a 21.8% advantage. This is a substantial margin that underscores the compute-oriented nature of the Fermi architecture. The Tesla’s score places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon’s OpenCL result puts it in the 46th percentile, showing that despite the age gap, the Tesla remains competitive in raw compute tasks.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this performance gap. The Tesla C2075’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, which scores 10,362 points, a mere 0.4% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A trails by 1.2% with 10,273 points. On the other side, the Radeon Pro WX 2100’s average benchmark score of 9,653 across its two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan) places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645 points) and 0.6% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716 points). Notably, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,770 points, a test the Tesla C2075 cannot run due to its lack of Vulkan support. This gives the AMD card a distinct advantage in modern graphics APIs, even if its raw compute score is lower.

The head-to-head table lists only one benchmark winner, with the Tesla C2075 taking the sole win. However, the Radeon’s Vulkan result, which is unavailable to the Tesla, suggests that in workloads leveraging that API, the AMD card would likely be the stronger performer. The data shows a trade-off: the Tesla wins the compute-heavy OpenCL test by a wide margin, while the Radeon offers a modern rendering path that the Tesla simply cannot access.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, using the GF110 chip on a 40 nm process from TSMC. This is a massive die, measuring 520 mm² and housing 3,000 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 5.8 million per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Lexa chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. Its die is a mere 103 mm², with 2,200 million transistors, yielding a density of 21.4 million per mm². The newer process node allows AMD to pack nearly four times the transistor density, a clear generational leap.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The Tesla C2075 features 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, resulting in 48.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla’s memory bandwidth is more than three times higher, which is critical for large datasets. However, the Radeon’s memory runs at 6 Gbps effective, while the Tesla’s runs at 3.1 Gbps effective, showing the newer card’s faster per-pin speeds despite the narrower bus.

Compute resources tell a more nuanced story. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 render output units (ROPs). The Radeon Pro WX 2100 counters with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. Despite having more shading units, the Radeon’s pixel rate is 19.50 GPixel/s versus the Tesla’s 16.07 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 39.01 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the Radeon leads with 1,248.3 GFLOPS, while the Tesla produces 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The Radeon also offers FP16 performance at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1), a feature entirely absent from the Tesla. This suggests the AMD card may be more balanced in mixed workloads, despite its lower memory bandwidth.

Power and physical characteristics highlight the efficiency gains. The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W, requires a 550 W power supply, and uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors. It is a dual-slot card, 248 mm long. The Radeon Pro WX 2100, by contrast, sips power at 35 W TDP, needs only a 200 W power supply, and draws all power from the PCIe slot with no additional connectors. It is a single-slot card, 168 mm long and 69 mm high. The Radeon also supports PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Tesla is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the Tesla offers a single DVI port, while the Radeon has 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, making it far more versatile for modern monitors.

API support further separates them. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Radeon’s superior DirectX version and Vulkan capability make it compatible with a wider range of contemporary software.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice based on workload. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is the pick for compute-heavy tasks that rely on OpenCL and require large memory capacity. Its 21.8% lead in the OpenCL benchmark and its 6 GB of VRAM make it suitable for data-intensive processing. Its 150.3 GB/s bandwidth is a decisive advantage for applications that move large blocks of data. The Tesla’s percentile ranking of 48 versus the Radeon’s 46 in the OpenCL test, combined with its higher average score of 10,400 versus the Radeon’s 9,653, confirms its superior raw compute position.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is the better choice for modern, energy-conscious environments. Its 35 W TDP is a fraction of the Tesla’s 247 W, making it ideal for systems with limited power budgets. Its single-slot design and lack of external power connectors simplify installation. The Vulkan 1.3 support and DirectX 12_0 compliance mean it can run contemporary applications and games, while the Tesla’s DirectX 11_0 and no Vulkan limit its software compatibility. The Radeon’s display outputs, including DisplayPort 1.4a, are also far ahead of the Tesla’s single DVI.

Strictly from the data, the Tesla C2075 wins on raw compute and memory bandwidth, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins on efficiency, modern API support, and physical footprint. The Radeon’s launch MSRP is 149 USD, which can be stated once, but the Tesla has no listed launch MSRP. For a user prioritizing OpenCL performance and large datasets, the Tesla is the superior tool. For a user needing a low-power, modern-featured card for professional rendering, the Radeon is the logical choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 8,536 points, giving the Tesla a 21.8% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, it supports Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 does not list any Vulkan support.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Tesla C2075 offers 150.3 GB/s over a 384-bit bus, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 provides 48.00 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a 247 W TDP and suggests a 550 W power supply, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP and suggests a 200 W power supply.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has 512 shading units, whereas the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The Tesla’s GF110 has a density of 5.8M transistors per mm², while the Radeon’s Lexa has a density of 21.4M transistors per mm².

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins in scenarios demanding maximum raw compute throughput. Its 21.8% OpenCL lead is the headline number, but its 6 GB memory capacity and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth make it the obvious choice for large-scale scientific computing, data analysis, or any workload that must keep massive datasets resident on the GPU. The 384-bit memory bus is a major asset, allowing the card to feed its 448 shading units without bottlenecking. The Tesla’s 48 ROPs also give it a higher pixel rate in situations where framebuffer operations are heavy, though its 16.07 GPixel/s is actually lower than the Radeon’s 19.50 GPixel/s.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins in efficiency and modern software support. Its 35 W TDP means it can operate in compact workstations without special cooling or power delivery, a stark contrast to the Tesla’s 247 W requirement and dual-slot footprint. The Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_0 support open doors to applications the Tesla cannot run, and the DisplayPort 1.4a outputs enable high-resolution, high-refresh-rate displays that the Tesla’s DVI port cannot drive. The Radeon’s 512 shading units and higher FP32 throughput of 1,248.3 GFLOPS also give it an edge in compute tasks that are not memory-bound, and its 1:1 FP16 performance is a feature the Tesla lacks entirely.

The Radeon Pro WX 2100 also wins on the basis of its average benchmark score across multiple tests. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,770 points exceeds its own OpenCL score, showing strong API utilization, while the Tesla has no comparable test result. The Radeon’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000, is only 0.1% faster in average score, and the Tesla C2070 is just 0.6% faster, indicating the Radeon sits comfortably in a competitive midrange bracket. The Tesla, by contrast, has rivals that are either slightly faster (RX 6500M at 0.4%) or slightly slower (GTX 950A at 1.2%), making its position more volatile.

Ultimately, the choice hinges on whether the user values the Tesla’s brute-force compute and memory capacity or the Radeon’s modern feature set and minimal power draw. The data shows no single winner across all categories, but rather two specialized tools for different jobs. The Tesla is a legacy compute workhorse, while the Radeon is a contemporary, efficient professional card.