AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and the AMD Radeon R9 M375 is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R9 M375 edges out the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 by a narrow margin. The AMD card scores 10,457 points against the NVIDIA card’s 10,400 points, a delta of -0.5% from the perspective of the Tesla. This places the two cards within a hair’s breadth of each other in raw compute throughput, making the result effectively a statistical tie rather than a decisive victory for either side.

Looking at the broader context, both cards occupy the 48th percentile among all GPUs, which underscores how closely matched they are in overall performance tier. The Tesla C2075’s average benchmark score of 10,400 is nearly identical to the R9 M375’s average of 10,070 — a difference of roughly 3.3% in favor of the older NVIDIA part, though that average includes the R9 M375’s additional Vulkan benchmark result, which pulls its mean downward. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Radeon R9 M375 scores 9,682 points, a figure the Tesla cannot contest because it has no Vulkan support listed in its specifications.

The nearest rival data reinforces the tight clustering. The Tesla C2075 sits just 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362 points) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273 points), while trailing the AMD Radeon RX 550X by 0.8% (10,481 points) and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X by 1.7% (10,582 points). For the R9 M375, the closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M at 10,043 points, a 0.3% gap in the AMD card’s favor, followed by the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M at 10,013 points (0.6% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959 points (1.1% ahead). The R9 M375 trails the GTX 950A by 2%, which is the largest delta among its listed rivals.

These numbers tell a clear story: neither card holds a meaningful performance advantage in compute workloads. The OpenCL scores differ by less than 0.6%, which is well within run-to-run variance for most benchmark suites. However, the R9 M375 has an additional arrow in its quiver — the Vulkan result — which the Tesla C2075 lacks entirely. For applications that leverage Vulkan, the AMD card is the only option of the two, and its 9,682-point score places it in the same performance neighborhood as its OpenCL result, suggesting consistent compute capability across both APIs.

# Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is built on the GF110 chip using the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.8 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R9 M375, by contrast, uses the Tropo chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a more advanced 28 nm node. This allows AMD to fit 1,500 million transistors into just 123 mm², achieving a much higher density of 12.2 million per square millimeter — more than double the Tesla’s density.

The transistor budget is allocated very differently. The Tesla C2075 deploys 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output pipelines. The R9 M375 counters with 640 shading units — 43% more — but only 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This means the AMD card has a theoretical peak FP32 throughput of 1,299.2 GFLOPS, outstripping the Tesla’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS by roughly 26%. In texture fill rate, the R9 M375 achieves 40.60 GTexel/s versus the Tesla’s 32.14 GTexel/s, a 26% advantage. However, in pixel fill rate, the two are nearly identical: the Tesla posts 16.07 GPixel/s while the R9 M375 manages 16.24 GPixel/s, a difference of barely 1%.

Memory architecture is where the divergence becomes stark. The Tesla C2075 carries 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M375 has only 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding just 28.80 GB/s — a five-fold deficit. This is a critical differentiator for memory-bound workloads, where the Tesla’s massive bandwidth advantage could offset its lower compute throughput. The Tesla’s memory runs at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), while the R9 M375’s memory operates at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), but the bus width difference is the dominant factor.

Clock speeds also differ. The R9 M375 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz, whereas the Tesla C2075 has no listed base or boost clocks, leaving its operating frequency unspecified in the data. The Tesla is a dual-slot card requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors with a 247 W TDP and a suggested 550 W power supply, while the R9 M375 has no TDP, power connector, or PSU guidance listed — consistent with its mobile-oriented design. The Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R9 M375 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, doubling the interconnect bandwidth. Display output is limited to 1x DVI on the Tesla, while the R9 M375 has no display outputs listed.

API support diverges as well. The Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are end-of-life products, but the Tesla was released on July 24, 2011, while the R9 M375 arrived nearly four years later on May 4, 2015. The Tesla’s generation is “Tesla Fermi (x20xx)” with a predecessor of “Tesla” and a successor of “Tesla Kepler,” while the R9 M375 belongs to the “Gem System (R9 M300)” generation, succeeding “Solar System” and preceding “Polaris Mobile.”

# FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has a higher FP32 peak at 1,299.2 GFLOPS, compared to the NVIDIA Tesla C2075’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS — a 26% advantage.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with only 28.80 GB/s. The Tesla’s bandwidth is over five times higher.

Q: Is the R9 M375 faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: Yes, marginally. The R9 M375 scores 10,457 versus the Tesla’s 10,400, a delta of 0.5% in the AMD card’s favor.

Q: Does the Tesla support Vulkan?

A: No. The Tesla C2075 lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan support, while the R9 M375 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R9 M375 has 640 shading units compared to the Tesla’s 448, a 43% higher count.

Q: What are the physical differences in size and power?

A: The Tesla is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm in length with a 247 W TDP and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. The R9 M375 has no dimensions, TDP, or power connector information listed.

# The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. In pure compute throughput, the AMD Radeon R9 M375 has a clear theoretical advantage: 26% higher FP32 peak, 26% higher texture fill rate, and 43% more shading units. The benchmark results confirm this translates into a slight real-world edge, with the R9 M375 winning the only head-to-head comparison by 0.5%. Additionally, the R9 M375 offers Vulkan support, which the Tesla lacks entirely, making it the more versatile choice for modern compute APIs.

However, the Tesla C2075 is not without its own strengths. Its memory subsystem is in a different class entirely — 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the R9 M375’s 2 GB of DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, the Tesla would likely outperform the R9 M375 despite its lower theoretical FLOP count. The Tesla also has a much larger frame buffer, which matters for datasets that exceed 2 GB.

The form factor is another consideration. The Tesla is a dual-slot, 247 W card requiring dual power connectors and a 550 W power supply, whereas the R9 M375 has no power specifications listed, suggesting it is designed for lower-power or mobile integration. For a desktop workstation with ample power headroom, the Tesla’s power draw is acceptable; for a compact or battery-powered system, the R9 M375 is the only practical choice.

In terms of production status, both are end-of-life. But the Tesla is from 2011, while the R9 M375 is from 2015, meaning the AMD part is substantially newer and built on a more advanced 28 nm process — which explains its superior transistor density (12.2M / mm² versus 5.8M / mm²) and smaller die (123 mm² versus 520 mm²). The R9 M375 also supports PCIe 3.0 versus the Tesla’s PCIe 2.0, halving the interconnect bandwidth gap.

The verdict depends on the workload. For compute-heavy tasks that fit within 2 GB of memory and can leverage Vulkan or benefit from higher FP32 throughput, the AMD Radeon R9 M375 is the stronger choice. For memory-intensive applications that require more than 2 GB of frame buffer or demand high bandwidth, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is the only option that can deliver. The benchmark data shows them as near-peers in OpenCL compute, so the deciding factor should be the specific memory and API requirements of the target workload.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 | AMD Radeon R9 M375 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GF110 | Tropo |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.8M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 448 | 640 |

| TMUs | 56 | 40 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 16.24 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 40.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 1,299.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 247 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Not listed |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI | None listed |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 248 mm length | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2011-07-24 | 2015-05-04 |

| Generation | Tesla Fermi (x20xx) | Gem System (R9 M300) |

| Predecessor | Tesla | Solar System |

| Successor | Tesla Kepler | Polaris Mobile |