AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and NVIDIA Tesla C2070 are two end-of-life professional GPUs separated by roughly eight years of silicon development, and the recorded benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. In the single head-to-head measurement available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the WX 3200 scores 11,228 against the C2070's 9,716, a 15.6 percent advantage for the AMD card. The C2070 counters with a wider memory subsystem and more render outputs, but its older Fermi architecture, 40 nm process node, and much higher power draw make it the weaker overall package in this database's measurements. Both cards sit below the median of all recorded GPUs, at the 50th and 47th percentiles respectively, so neither is a performance leader; the question is which set of tradeoffs fits a given workload.

The Verdict

The data points to the Radeon Pro WX 3200 for nearly every buyer choosing between these two today. It wins the only recorded benchmark, delivers higher pixel fill rate (20.72 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s), higher texture fill rate (41.44 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (1.658 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS), all while running at a 65 W TDP with no auxiliary power connectors and occupying a single slot. The Tesla C2070 demands a 238 W TDP, a 550 W suggested power supply, dual-slot clearance, and both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector to deliver less measured performance. The one argument for the C2070 from the data is memory: 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth, against the WX 3200's 4 GB, 128-bit bus, and 96 GB/s. Workloads that are capacity-bound or bandwidth-bound and can tolerate the power and space cost remain the C2070's only defensible territory in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

These cards come from fundamentally different eras of GPU design. The WX 3200 is built on the Polaris 23 chip, GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated at GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a density of 21.4M transistors per square millimetre. The C2070 uses the GF100 chip, the Fermi architecture, produced at TSMC on a 40 nm node. Its 3,100 million transistors spread across a 529 mm² die produce just 5.9M transistors per square millimetre, roughly a quarter of the AMD part's density. That contrast captures nearly a decade of process advancement in one comparison.

The generational lineage also differs in intent. The WX 3200 belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200) family, preceded by Radeon Pro GCN and succeeded by Radeon Pro Vega. The C2070 sits in the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) line, preceded by Tesla and succeeded by Tesla Kepler, marking NVIDIA's first-generation push into general-purpose compute accelerators.

Feature support favors the newer card as well. The WX 3200 exposes DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, with FP16 throughput listed at 1.658 TFLOPS at a full 1:1 rate with FP32. The C2070 supports DirectX 12 only at feature level 11_0 and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed and no FP16 figure recorded. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores; both are pre-ray-tracing designs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head result, and it is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 and the Tesla C2070 scores 9,716. That is a 15.6 percent win for the AMD card, the sole benchmark victory recorded between them, giving the WX 3200 a 1-0 win count.

Context from each card's nearest rivals reinforces the result. The WX 3200's score of 11,228 sits within a tight cluster: the AMD FirePro W4300 averages 11,225 (an effectively identical result), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M averages 11,261 (0.3 percent ahead of the WX 3200), and both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q average 11,088, about 1.3 percent behind in this specific test. The C2070's 9,716 lands near the NVIDIA Tesla M10 at 9,724 (0.1 percent apart), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (0.5 percent behind), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653 (0.7 percent behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780 (0.7 percent ahead). Note that the GTX 1070's proximity to the C2070 in this OpenCL test is a property of the workload, not of overall capability.

The theoretical throughput figures explain the benchmark outcome. The WX 3200's 640 shading units, fed by GCN 4.0's higher efficiency, produce 1.658 TFLOPS FP32 against the C2070's 1,027.7 GFLOPS from 448 shading units. The fill-rate picture is the same: 20.72 versus 16.07 GPixel/s for pixels, and 41.44 versus 32.14 GTexel/s for textures. The C2070's advantages are confined to memory bandwidth (143.4 versus 96 GB/s), bus width (384-bit versus 128-bit), memory capacity (6 GB versus 4 GB), and ROP count (48 versus 16), none of which translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The differing fields, side by side:

• Chip and architecture: Polaris 23 with GCN 4.0 versus GF100 with Fermi.
• Process node and foundry: 14 nm at GlobalFoundries versus 40 nm at TSMC; 2,200 million transistors on 103 mm² versus 3,100 million on 529 mm².
• Shading units: 640 versus 448.
• TMUs: 32 versus 56, one of the few raw-count wins for the C2070.
• ROPs: 16 versus 48, heavily in the C2070's favor on paper.
• Memory: 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 96 GB/s, running at an effective 6 Gbps, versus 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus at 143.4 GB/s, running at an effective 3 Gbps.
• Compute: 1.658 TFLOPS FP32 and 1.658 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1) versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS FP32 with no FP16 figure recorded.
• Fill rates: 20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s.
• Power: 65 W TDP, no power connectors, 250 W suggested PSU versus 238 W TDP, one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector, 550 W suggested PSU.
• Form factor: single-slot, 167 mm long and 69 mm tall versus dual-slot, 248 mm long.
• Bus and outputs: PCIe 3.0 x8 with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors versus PCIe 2.0 x16 with a single DVI output.
• API support: DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, OpenGL 4.6 versus DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, no Vulkan listed.
• Release and status: both end-of-life; the WX 3200 launched with a 199 USD launch MSRP, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the C2070.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3200. It scores 11,228 in Geekbench OpenCL against the Tesla C2070's 9,716, a 15.6 percent margin, and it holds the only benchmark win between the two.

Q: Does the Tesla C2070 have any hardware advantage?

A: Yes, in memory and render output. It offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth, plus 48 ROPs and 56 TMUs, compared with the WX 3200's 4 GB, 128-bit bus, 96 GB/s, 16 ROPs, and 32 TMUs.

Q: How power-hungry is each card?

A: The WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP, needs no auxiliary power connectors, and pairs with a suggested 250 W PSU. The C2070 has a 238 W TDP, requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and calls for a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Where does each card rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: The WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile and the C2070 at the 47th percentile, so both are mid-table parts rather than standout performers by current standards.

Q: Which cards score closest to each of these?

A: The WX 3200's closest rivals are the FirePro W4300 (11,225), GeForce GTX 780M (11,261), and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants (11,088 each). The C2070 clusters with the Tesla M10 (9,724), Quadro P4000 (9,665), Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653), and GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780).

Q: Do either of these support modern graphics APIs?

A: The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The C2070 supports DirectX 12 only at feature level 11_0 and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins for: general OpenCL compute work, where its 15.6 percent benchmark lead is the clearest signal in the dataset; any deployment constrained by power, since it runs at 65 W with no auxiliary connectors; compact or multi-GPU chassis, thanks to its single-slot design and 167 mm length; multi-monitor professional setups, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus a single DVI; modern API compatibility, including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 feature level 12_0; and half-precision compute, where its FP16 rate matches its FP32 rate at 1.658 TFLOPS while the C2070 has no recorded FP16 capability.

The Tesla C2070 wins for: workloads that exhaust 4 GB of memory, since it carries 6 GB; bandwidth-sensitive tasks that benefit from 143.4 GB/s across a 384-bit bus; and scenarios where its higher ROP count of 48 could matter for pixel output, though the recorded fill rate still favors the WX 3200 at 20.72 versus 16.07 GPixel/s, indicating the C2070's ROP advantage is undermined elsewhere in its pipeline. These are narrow cases, and they come bundled with a 238 W power budget, dual-slot footprint, and older API support. On the totality of the recorded data, the WX 3200 is the stronger card in this pairing.