AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the single available benchmark comparison, the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 takes a decisive victory over the AMD Radeon R9 M265X. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Tesla C2070 scores 9,716 points against the Radeon's 8,851, a delta of 9.8%. That is a meaningful margin in compute workloads, placing the Tesla comfortably ahead in raw throughput. The data shows a clear winner: one benchmark, one win for the NVIDIA part, zero for AMD.

Context matters here. The Tesla C2070's 9,716 score sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R9 M265X lands at the 44th percentile. Neither card is a top-tier performer in the modern landscape, but the Tesla's edge is not trivial. That 9.8% gap translates into roughly 865 points of separation. For a GPU released in 2011 versus one from 2014, the older card's lead is notable.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card reinforces the picture. The Tesla C2070's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Tesla M10, which averages 9,724 — just 0.1% ahead. The Quadro P4000 trails by 0.5%, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 by 0.7%, and the GeForce GTX 1070 leads by 0.7%. The Tesla is essentially trading blows with a much newer Tesla M10, and it edges out professional workstation cards like the Quadro P4000. That is a strong signal that the Fermi architecture, despite its age, still holds its own in OpenCL compute.

The Radeon R9 M265X, by contrast, sits in a different performance tier. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, which averages 8,863 — just 0.1% ahead. The AMD Radeon 550X leads by 0.8%, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and GeForce GTX 460 v2 trail by 1.2% each. The Radeon is clustered with entry-level and older midrange parts, none of which approach the Tesla's score. The gap between the two cards in this comparison is wider than the gaps among their respective rival clusters, which underscores the Tesla's advantage.

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 wins in compute-heavy scenarios, as evidenced by its OpenCL benchmark victory. With 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units, the Tesla is built for parallel throughput. Its FP32 performance of 1,027.7 GFLOPS is substantially higher than the Radeon's 800.0 GFLOPS, a 28.5% advantage in raw floating-point math. That makes the Tesla the better choice for general-purpose GPU computing, scientific simulations, and any workload that leverages OpenCL.

The Tesla also wins on memory bandwidth. Its 384-bit bus width and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth dwarf the Radeon's 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s. That is more than double the bandwidth, which matters for memory-bound kernels. The Tesla's 6 GB of GDDR5 memory is triple the Radeon's 2 GB, giving it far more headroom for large datasets. Pixel rate and texture rate also favor the Tesla: 16.07 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s, and 32.14 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s.

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X wins in efficiency of design and modern feature support. It is built on a 28 nm process versus the Tesla's 40 nm, which means it packs 1,500 million transistors into just 123 mm², a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The Tesla, by contrast, uses 3,100 million transistors across 529 mm², yielding only 5.9M per mm². The Radeon's newer architecture supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Tesla lacks entirely, and it offers DirectX 12 (11_1) support versus the Tesla's DirectX 12 (11_0). The Radeon also has a higher shading unit count at 640 versus 448, though it falls behind in actual FP32 output due to lower clocks.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip. Fermi was NVIDIA's first truly scalable compute architecture, designed with a focus on tessellation and compute performance. The Radeon R9 M265X uses AMD's Graphics Core Next 1.0 architecture, built on the Venus chip. GCN was AMD's answer to Fermi, emphasizing throughput and compute efficiency.

The process nodes tell a story of generational progress. The Tesla uses TSMC's 40 nm process, while the Radeon uses TSMC's 28 nm process. That node difference explains the transistor density gap: the Radeon crams 12.2M transistors per mm² into a 123 mm² die, while the Tesla spreads 3,100 million transistors across a massive 529 mm² die at 5.9M per mm². The Tesla's die is over four times larger, but the Radeon packs nearly twice the density.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The Tesla uses a 384-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR5, delivering 143.4 GB/s. The Radeon uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The Tesla's memory clock is 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the Radeon's is 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Radeon's faster memory clock per pin cannot compensate for its narrow bus, resulting in less than half the bandwidth.

Core configuration also diverges. The Tesla has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Radeon has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon has 43% more shading units but far fewer ROPs. The Tesla's higher pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s vs. 10.00 GPixel/s) reflects its ROP advantage, while its texture rate (32.14 GTexel/s vs. 25.00 GTexel/s) shows TMU superiority. Neither card features ray tracing or tensor cores.

API support differs in key ways. The Radeon supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Tesla does not list Vulkan support at all. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon's DirectX support is 12 (11_1), slightly ahead of the Tesla's 12 (11_0).

# Specification Differences

The specifications where these two cards differ are extensive. The most obvious is process node: 40 nm for the Tesla versus 28 nm for the Radeon. Transistor count is 3,100 million versus 1,500 million. Die size is 529 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is 5.9M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

Clocks differ as well. The Tesla has no base or boost clock listed, while the Radeon runs at 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost. Memory clock is 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the Tesla versus 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the Radeon. Memory size is 6 GB versus 2 GB, both GDDR5. Bus width is 384 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is 143.4 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.

Compute resources differ: 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs for the Tesla; 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the Radeon. Pixel rate is 16.07 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 32.14 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs only exist for the Tesla. Its TDP is 238 W, it is dual-slot, requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU. It measures 248 mm (9.8 inches) in length. The Radeon has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, suggested PSU, or dimensions. The Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x DVI for the Tesla, none listed for the Radeon.

Release dates differ by roughly three years: the Tesla launched on July 24, 2011, while the Radeon launched on March 20, 2014. Both are end-of-life products. The Tesla's predecessor is Tesla and successor is Tesla Kepler; the Radeon's predecessor is Solar System and successor is Polaris Mobile.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 wins with a score of 9,716 versus the AMD Radeon R9 M265X's 8,851, a 9.8% advantage.

Q: How does the Tesla C2070 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Tesla's closest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla M10 at 9,724, just 0.1% ahead. It also edges out the Quadro P4000 by 0.5% and the Radeon Pro WX 2100 by 0.7%, while trailing the GeForce GTX 1070 by 0.7%.

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

A: The Tesla C2070 delivers 143.4 GB/s across a 384-bit bus, while the Radeon R9 M265X delivers 64.00 GB/s across a 128-bit bus. The Tesla has more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Does the Radeon R9 M265X support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Radeon supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The Tesla C2070 does not list Vulkan support in its specifications.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Tesla C2070 achieves 1,027.7 GFLOPS, compared to the Radeon's 800.0 GFLOPS, giving the Tesla a 28.5% advantage in single-precision compute.

Q: How do the transistor counts and die sizes compare?

A: The Tesla uses 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die (5.9M per mm²), while the Radeon uses 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die (12.2M per mm²). The Radeon is far denser due to its 28 nm process versus the Tesla's 40 nm.