AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and NVIDIA Tesla C2075 represent two very different eras of professional computing, and the benchmark data reflects that divide clearly. In the single available head-to-head metric, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 decisively outperforms the NVIDIA Tesla C2075, scoring 11,228 against 10,400 in Geekbench OpenCL — an 8% advantage. This result, combined with the architectural and specification differences catalogued below, positions the WX 3200 as the more capable modern performer, while the Tesla C2075 remains a relic of a bygone compute era.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 trails at 10,400 points. This translates to an 8% delta in favor of the AMD card, making it the winner of the sole head-to-head benchmark. The margin is not trivial; it represents a meaningful gap in raw compute throughput that would manifest in real-world OpenCL workloads.

Contextualizing the WX 3200’s score against its nearest rivals reinforces its position. It sits 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261) and 1.3% ahead of both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (each at 11,088). Its closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W4300, which scores 11,225 — a negligible 0% delta. This clustering suggests the WX 3200 performs squarely in the mid-range of the database, holding its own against much newer and more expensive hardware in this specific test.

The Tesla C2075, by contrast, finds itself in a slightly lower tier. Its 10,400 score places it 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273), but 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481) and 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582). The data shows the Tesla C2075 is not merely outdated; it is outclassed by even entry-level modern mobile GPUs, underscoring how far compute performance has advanced since its release.

The percentile rankings corroborate this gap. The WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, a perfectly average standing, while the Tesla C2075 falls to the 48th percentile. While a two-point difference may seem small, it is consistent with the 8% benchmark delta: the WX 3200 is the better performer in this pairing, and the numbers agree across every available metric.

The Verdict

The choice between these two cards, based strictly on the data, is clear. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 8%, holds a higher percentile ranking (50th vs. 48th), and does so with dramatically lower power requirements. The verdict is for the WX 3200 for virtually any use case that requires modern OpenCL performance, lower system overhead, or contemporary API support.

However, the Tesla C2075 is not without its own arguments. It offers 6 GB of GDDR5 memory compared to the WX 3200’s 4 GB, and its memory bus is 384-bit versus 128-bit, yielding 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth against the WX 3200’s 96.00 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-capacity-bound or bandwidth-hungry, the Tesla C2075 could theoretically hold an advantage, but the benchmark data does not test such scenarios. In the one metric we have, the WX 3200 wins outright.

Who should pick which? The data suggests the WX 3200 for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance per watt, modern driver support, or display connectivity — it offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus a single DVI on the Tesla. The Tesla C2075 would only be a sensible pick for legacy compute tasks that specifically require its larger memory pool or broader 384-bit bus, and even then, the performance deficit in the available benchmark is a cautionary signal. For a modern buyer, the WX 3200 is the data-backed choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228, which is 8% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla C2075’s 10,400.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The WX 3200 is virtually tied with the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225, 0% delta), 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261), and 1.3% ahead of both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (each 11,088).

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for these GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is 167 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, and is a single-slot card. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is 248 mm (9.8 inches) long, is dual-slot, and requires both a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on nearly every core specification. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 packs 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 counters with 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This translates to different fill rates: the WX 3200 achieves 20.72 GPixel/s pixel rate and 41.44 GTexel/s texture rate, while the Tesla C2075 manages 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s, respectively. The WX 3200 leads in both despite having fewer TMUs and ROPs, a signal of its newer architecture and higher clocks.

Compute throughput is another stark differentiator. The WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Tesla C2075 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS — a clear win for the AMD card. Notably, the WX 3200 also lists FP16 performance at 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), whereas the Tesla C2075 has no FP16 specification listed at all.

Memory specifications also contrast sharply. The WX 3200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus for 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla C2075 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) on a 384-bit bus for 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla’s memory advantage is real, but it comes at the cost of far higher power draw.

Physical and interface differences are equally pronounced. The WX 3200 is a single-slot card, 167 mm long, with no power connectors and a 65 W TDP. The Tesla C2075 is dual-slot, 248 mm long, requiring a 6-pin and 8-pin connector, with a 247 W TDP. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the AMD card versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the NVIDIA card. Display outputs are a major divergence — four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the WX 3200 versus a single DVI on the Tesla.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is built on the Polaris 23 chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is based on the GF110 chip using Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a much larger 520 mm² die, with a significantly lower transistor density of 5.8M per mm².

The manufacturing process difference is the single biggest architectural factor. The 14 nm node allows the WX 3200 to pack more transistors per area (21.4M/mm² vs. 5.8M/mm²) while consuming far less power (65 W vs. 247 W). This efficiency advantage explains how the WX 3200 achieves higher FP32 throughput (1.658 TFLOPS vs. 1,027.7 GFLOPS) despite having fewer total transistors and a smaller die.

Generation-wise, the WX 3200 belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200) generation, succeeding the Radeon Pro GCN and preceding the Radeon Pro Vega. The Tesla C2075 is part of the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation, succeeding the original Tesla and preceding Tesla Kepler. The release dates confirm the gap: the Tesla C2075 launched in July 2011, while the WX 3200 launched in July 2019 — eight years of architectural evolution separate them.

Feature support reinforces the generational gap. The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but lacks Vulkan entirely. The WX 3200 also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, a feature entirely absent from the Tesla’s spec sheet. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, but the WX 3200’s modern API support makes it far more versatile for contemporary software.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins decisively in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 8% higher Geekbench OpenCL score. It also wins on efficiency, with a 65 W TDP versus the Tesla’s 247 W, making it suitable for systems with a 250 W PSU rather than the Tesla’s required 550 W. The WX 3200 wins on modern API support, offering Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the Tesla’s lack of Vulkan and older DirectX 12 (11_0) feature level. It also wins on display connectivity, providing four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus a single DVI, and on physical footprint, being a single-slot card that is 81 mm shorter.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins exclusively on memory-centric specs. It offers 6 GB of VRAM versus the WX 3200’s 4 GB, and its 384-bit bus delivers 150.3 GB/s bandwidth compared to 96.00 GB/s. For workloads that are specifically memory-capacity-bound or require high memory bandwidth, the Tesla has a theoretical edge — though the benchmark data does not validate this in practice. It also has more TMUs (56 vs. 32) and ROPs (48 vs. 16), which could benefit certain pixel-heavy tasks, but its lower pixel and texture rates (16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s vs. 20.72 and 41.44) show the WX 3200 still wins on throughput.

In summary, the WX 3200 is the better all-around card for modern compute and display workloads, while the Tesla C2075 retains niche value for legacy applications needing its larger memory pool or wider bus. The data, however, clearly favors the AMD card in the only direct benchmark available.