AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400, which is 17.5% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M265X's 8,851. This gives the NVIDIA part a decisive win in the only head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: How does the Tesla C2075 compare to its closest rivals?

A: Its score of 10,400 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), while trailing the AMD Radeon RX 550X by 0.8% (10,481) and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X by 1.7% (10,582).

Q: What is the performance context of the Radeon R9 M265X among its peers?

A: The R9 M265X's 8,851 score is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863, a 0.1% deficit) and the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918, a 0.8% deficit). It is 1.2% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743).

Q: Which GPU has better pixel and texture throughput?

A: The Tesla C2075 leads in pixel rate at 16.07 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s, and in texture rate at 32.14 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s. Despite the R9 M265X having more shading units, the Tesla's higher clock rates and wider bus deliver superior fill rates.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 offers 150.3 GB/s from its 384-bit bus and 6 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon R9 M265X provides 64.00 GB/s from a 128-bit bus and 2 GB of GDDR5. The Tesla's bandwidth advantage is roughly 2.3x.

Q: What are the architecture generations of these two GPUs?

A: The Tesla C2075 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture (GF110 chip) on a 40 nm process from TSMC, while the Radeon R9 M265X uses GCN 1.0 (Venus chip) on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and AMD Radeon R9 M265X represent two fundamentally different design philosophies from different eras. The Tesla C2075 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF110 chip, a design that prioritized raw compute throughput for professional workloads. It uses a 40 nm process from TSMC, packing 3,000 million transistors into a 520 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 5.8 million per mm², which is low by modern standards but reflects the larger, power-hungry nature of the Fermi design.

The Radeon R9 M265X, by contrast, employs the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Venus chip, manufactured on a much more advanced 28 nm TSMC process. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². This is more than double the density of the Tesla, showing how process improvements allowed AMD to fit a significant number of compute units into a much smaller package.

In terms of raw compute resources, the R9 M265X has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Tesla C2075 has fewer shading units at 448, but more TMUs at 56 and significantly more ROPs at 48. This configuration shows the Tesla's bias toward geometry and pixel processing, while the R9 M265X relies on a larger number of simpler shader cores.

The memory subsystem is a major architectural differentiator. The Tesla C2075 uses a 384-bit memory bus with 6 GB of GDDR5, delivering 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M265X uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, providing 64.00 GB/s. This is a fundamental design choice: the Tesla was built for large data sets and compute-heavy tasks, while the R9 M265X was designed for mobile efficiency and moderate workloads.

The API support also differs. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, making it more forward-looking in terms of API compatibility.

The bus interface reflects their respective generations: the Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R9 M265X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Tesla's power design is notable: it is a dual-slot card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, with a 247 W TDP and a recommended 550 W power supply. The R9 M265X has no TDP, power connector, or PSU information recorded, suggesting it was intended for mobile platforms where those specs are not user-accessible.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark between these two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8,851. This gives the Tesla a 17.5% advantage, a significant margin in a compute-oriented test.

This benchmark result aligns with the architectural strengths of the Tesla. Its FP32 performance of 1,027.7 GFLOPS is 28.5% higher than the R9 M265X's 800.0 GFLOPS. The Tesla also leads in pixel rate (16.07 vs 10.00 GPixel/s, a 60.7% advantage) and texture rate (32.14 vs 25.00 GTexel/s, a 28.6% advantage). The memory bandwidth gap is even larger: 150.3 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, a 134.8% advantage for the Tesla.

The R9 M265X does have one clear specification advantage: 640 shading units versus 448, a 42.9% higher count. However, this does not translate into benchmark success. The R9 M265X's lower clock speeds (575 MHz base, 625 MHz boost) compared to the Tesla's memory clock of 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) suggest that the Tesla's higher per-core efficiency and massive memory bandwidth more than compensate for its lower shader count.

In the context of their nearest rivals, the Tesla's score of 10,400 puts it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M265X's 8,851 sits at the 44th percentile. The Tesla's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, is only 0.4% behind, indicating that the Tesla is competitive with much newer parts. The R9 M265X's closest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, is essentially tied with it at a 0.1% difference.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Process node: 40 nm (Tesla) vs 28 nm (R9 M265X)
• Transistors: 3,000 million vs 1,500 million
• Die size: 520 mm² vs 123 mm²
• Transistor density: 5.8M / mm² vs 12.2M / mm²
• Memory clock: 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) vs 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 6 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory bus width: 384 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 150.3 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s
• Shading units: 448 vs 640
• TMUs: 56 vs 40
• ROPs: 48 vs 16
• Pixel rate: 16.07 GPixel/s vs 10.00 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 32.14 GTexel/s vs 25.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,027.7 GFLOPS vs 800.0 GFLOPS
• TDP: 247 W vs not recorded
• Slot width: Dual-slot vs not recorded
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs not recorded
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs not recorded
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x DVI vs not recorded
• Length: 248 mm (9.8 inches) vs not recorded
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan support: Not listed vs 1.2.170
• Release date: 2011-07-24 vs 2014-03-20
• Predecessor: Tesla vs Solar System
• Successor: Tesla Kepler vs Polaris Mobile
• Geekbench OpenCL score: 10,400 vs 8,851
• Percentile: 48 vs 44

Fields that are the same or not recorded include: architecture generation names differ, but both use GDDR5 memory, both are end-of-life, both have no RT cores or tensor cores, neither lists FP16 performance, and both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 in raw compute performance. Its 17.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is substantial, and it holds advantages across every major throughput metric: pixel rate, texture rate, FP32, and memory bandwidth. For workloads that depend on memory bandwidth or fill rate, the Tesla C2075 is categorically superior.

The Radeon R9 M265X does have a few points in its favor. Its higher shading unit count and newer architecture (GCN 1.0 vs Fermi 2.0) suggest better efficiency per transistor. It also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Tesla does not, and its newer release date (2014 vs 2011) means it came from a more modern design era. The 28 nm process gives it a much higher transistor density, and its smaller die size implies lower manufacturing costs and likely lower power consumption, though no TDP is recorded for the R9 M265X.

However, the benchmark data does not reward these architectural advantages. The Tesla C2075's 48th percentile ranking versus the R9 M265X's 44th percentile reflects a meaningful gap in real-world compute performance. The Tesla's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A, both of which are within 1.2% of its score. The R9 M265X's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and the AMD Radeon 550X, with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile also close behind.

For users seeking maximum OpenCL compute performance, the Tesla C2075 is the clear choice from this data. Its 6 GB of memory and 384-bit bus make it especially suited for large data sets and bandwidth-intensive tasks. The R9 M265X, with its 2 GB memory and 128-bit bus, is more limited in this regard, despite its more modern architecture and higher shader count.

The verdict is straightforward: the Tesla C2075 wins the head-to-head benchmark decisively, and its specification sheet supports that result. The R9 M265X is a newer, more efficient design, but the recorded measurements show it cannot match the Tesla's compute throughput. Buyers looking at these two specific products should prioritize the Tesla C2075 for any compute-heavy application, while the R9 M265X may be preferable in contexts where Vulkan support or smaller physical footprint matters more, though its performance ceiling is measurably lower.