AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100. The single recorded test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a decisive victory for the AMD card. The Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 points, while the Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217 points. The delta of 57.1% in favor of AMD means the WX 5100 delivers more than twice the raw compute performance in this workload. This is not a narrow margin; it is a generational gap expressed through a single metric.

The Tesla C2075's score of 10,400 places it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its closest rivals, according to the recorded data, are the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10,362 (0.4% behind the Tesla), the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481 (0.8% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A at 10,273 (1.2% behind), and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X at 10,582 (1.7% ahead). These are all modern or recent mobile and entry-level desktop parts, which indicates that the Tesla C2075, despite its age, sits in a performance tier comparable to those products in OpenCL. The narrow deltas, ranging from 0.4% to 1.7%, show that the Tesla is not an outlier; it is simply a mid-pack performer.

The Radeon Pro WX 5100's OpenCL score of 24,217 is far above the Tesla's. However, its overall average benchmark score in the database is 8,863, which places it at the 44th percentile. This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that the WX 5100 also has scores for Metal, Vulkan, and Passmark tests, and the average pulls the percentile down. Its nearest rivals by average score are the AMD Radeon R9 M265X at 8,851 (0.1% behind the WX 5100), the AMD Radeon 550X at 8,918 (0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8,746 (1.3% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 8,743 (1.4% behind). The small deltas around 1% mean the WX 5100's average score is tightly clustered with these other cards, even though its OpenCL result is exceptional.

The head-to-head table shows the WX 5100 winning the only shared test. The Tesla C2075 registers zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the WX 5100 registers one. For the OpenCL test, the delta is recorded as -57.1%, which reflects the Tesla's score being 57.1% lower than the AMD card's score. In practical terms, a workload that takes one unit of time on the WX 5100 would take more than two units on the Tesla, assuming linear scaling.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip, built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, produced on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The die is 520 mm² and contains 3,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 5.8 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip, based on GCN 4.0, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. Its die is 232 mm² with 5,700 million transistors, giving a density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. AMD's newer node allows for nearly four times the transistor density on a much smaller die.

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The Tesla has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus, with memory clocked at 783 MHz and 3.1 Gbps effective, providing 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, with memory at 1250 MHz and 5 Gbps effective, reaching 160.0 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the AMD card achieves slightly higher bandwidth. The Tesla's wider bus is a hallmark of its high-end workstation heritage, but the newer memory technology on the AMD card compensates.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward AMD. The Tesla has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operations units. The WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. AMD packs four times the shader count and double the TMUs, while NVIDIA retains more ROPs. The pixel rate for the Tesla is 16.07 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 32.14 GTexel/s. The WX 5100 posts 34.75 GPixel/s and 121.6 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the Tesla delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS, while the WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS, which is 3.892 TFLOPS for FP16 as well, at a 1:1 ratio. The AMD card also has explicit FP16 support, which the Tesla lacks entirely.

Power and physical specifications differ sharply. The Tesla has a TDP of 247 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and needs both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 550 W. It measures 248 mm in length (9.8 inches. The WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W, fits in a single slot, requires no power connectors, and needs only a 250 W power supply. It is 173 mm long (6.8 inches) and 112 mm tall (4.4 inches). The Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the WX 5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are also different: the Tesla has a single DVI port, while the WX 5100 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

API support shows the generational divide. The Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan. The WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The AMD card is fully compliant with modern graphics APIs, while the Tesla is limited to an older DirectX feature level and lacks Vulkan entirely.

The release dates confirm the gap. The Tesla C2075 was released on 2011-07-24, with the predecessor being Tesla and the successor Tesla Kepler. The WX 5100 was released on 2016-11-17, with the predecessor Radeon Pro GCN and the successor Radeon Pro Vega. Both are now end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a 57.1% margin. This makes it the clear choice for any OpenCL compute workload. Its additional benchmark results, while not directly compared to the Tesla, show strong performance across modern APIs: 29,003 in Geekbench Metal, 26,909 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 5,496 in Passmark G3D. It also records 777 in Passmark G2D and 2,053 in Passmark GPU Compute. The WX 5100 is therefore suited to tasks that leverage Vulkan, Metal, or modern DirectX 12 features, as well as general compute.

The Tesla C2075 has no recorded wins in the head-to-head comparison. Its only benchmark result is the OpenCL score of 10,400, which is competitive with its nearest rivals (within 1.7% of four other cards) but far behind the WX 5100. The Tesla's strengths are historical: it comes from the Fermi era, with a 384 bit memory bus and 6 GB of GDDR5, which was substantial for its time. In a modern context, the data does not show any workload where the Tesla beats the WX 5100. The Tesla does have a higher ROP count (48 vs 32), which could theoretically benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks, but no benchmark in the database confirms this advantage.

For users prioritizing power efficiency, the WX 5100 is overwhelmingly superior. Its TDP is 75 W versus 247 W for the Tesla, and it requires no external power connectors. The suggested power supply is 250 W versus 550 W. The WX 5100 also offers four DisplayPort outputs, enabling multi-monitor setups, while the Tesla offers only one DVI output. The WX 5100's single-slot design and shorter length (173 mm vs 248 mm) make it far easier to integrate into compact systems.

For legacy applications that rely on Fermi-era compute or require the Tesla's specific driver ecosystem, the C2075 may still function, but the data shows no performance advantage. The Tesla's OpenCL score is roughly 43% of the WX 5100's score (10,400 / 24,217), which is a massive deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. The WX 5100 is 57.1% faster in this test.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 150.3 GB/s bandwidth with 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus. The WX 5100 has 160.0 GB/s bandwidth with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus. The AMD card has slightly higher bandwidth and more memory.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and requires a 550 W power supply, with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W, requires no power connectors, and needs only a 250 W power supply.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 support Vulkan?

A: No. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, compared to 448 on the Tesla C2075. The AMD card also has 112 TMUs versus 56, and 32 ROPs versus 48.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures?

A: The Tesla C2075 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS in FP32. The WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS in FP32 and the same 3.892 TFLOPS in FP16 (1:1 ratio).

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the superior card in nearly every measurable aspect. In the only direct head-to-head benchmark, OpenCL, it beats the Tesla C2075 by 57.1%. It has more than double the FP32 compute (3.892 TFLOPS vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS), more memory (8 GB vs 6 GB), higher bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 150.3 GB/s), modern API support including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), and far lower power requirements (75 W vs 247 W, no power connectors vs 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin, 250 W vs 550 W suggested PSU). It is also physically smaller (173 mm vs 248 mm) and offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus a single DVI.

The Tesla C2075 is a Fermi-era product from 2011, and its only benchmark result, 10,400 in OpenCL, places it at the 48th percentile, clustered within 1.7% of cards like the Radeon RX 550X and GeForce GTX 950A. That is not a bad result for its age, but it is not competitive with the WX 5100. The Tesla's advantages are limited to a wider memory bus (384 bit vs 256 bit) and more ROPs (48 vs 32), but no benchmark in the database demonstrates that these translate into a win.

For any user choosing between these two cards today, the Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the correct pick. It wins the only shared test, offers broader API compatibility, consumes a third of the power, fits in more chassis, and supports modern display outputs. The Tesla C2075 should only be considered if a specific legacy application requires Fermi architecture or if the system cannot accommodate a PCIe 3.0 card, though the WX 5100's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is backward compatible with PCIe 2.0 slots. The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity: the WX 5100 is the stronger product.