AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two cards cleanly, but only one of them has any measurable win at all. The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11,063 against the Tesla C2075's 10,400 — a 6.4% margin. That is the sole direct comparison, and it favors AMD.

The RX 550 also fields additional benchmark results that the Tesla simply cannot match in this dataset: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,270, a Geekbench Metal score of 20,838, and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 127. The Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan, Metal, or DX12 benchmark entries at all, which aligns with its older feature set. If your workload runs on modern graphics APIs, the RX 550 is the only card here that shows up for those tests.

The Tesla C2075's single data point is its Geekbench OpenCL result. That puts it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 550 sits at the 50th percentile. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the RX 550 averages 11,075 across its four tests, while the Tesla averages 10,400 from its one test. The RX 550 is roughly 6.5% ahead on average, which mirrors its head-to-head OpenCL advantage.

For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL specifically, the difference is real but modest — 6.4% is not a generational gap. For anything that uses Vulkan, Metal, or DX12, the RX 550 is the only option with data. The Tesla C2075 is effectively a single-API compute card in this comparison, while the RX 550 is a more versatile modern GPU.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different eras and design philosophies. The RX 550 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip on Fermi 2.0 architecture, built by TSMC on a 40 nm process. It has more transistors — 3,000 million — but spread across a much larger 520 mm² die, yielding just 5.8 million transistors per square millimeter. That density gap is enormous: the RX 550 packs nearly four times as many transistors per area.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The RX 550 carries 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1,750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, memory clocked at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), and bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s. The Tesla has triple the capacity and 34% more bandwidth, but its memory clock is less than half of the RX 550's.

Compute unit counts favor the RX 550 in some areas and the Tesla in others. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Tesla has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. So the AMD card has 14% more shaders, but the NVIDIA card has 75% more TMUs and 200% more ROPs. Pixel rate favors the RX 550 at 18.93 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s for the Tesla — about 18% higher. Texture rate is closer: 37.86 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s, a 17.8% lead for AMD. FP32 compute also goes to the RX 550 at 1,211.4 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS, an 18% advantage. The RX 550 also supports FP16 at 1:1 ratio (1,211.4 GFLOPS), while the Tesla has no FP16 support listed.

Power and physical requirements diverge dramatically. The RX 550 draws 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The Tesla C2075 draws 247 W TDP, requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU. The RX 550 is also shorter at 145 mm (5.7 inches) versus 248 mm (9.8 inches) for the Tesla. Both are dual-slot cards.

The bus interface differs too: the RX 550 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs show the RX 550 is more modern with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Tesla has only 1x DVI. API support reflects the generational gap: the RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is exactly one head-to-head benchmark in the data, and it is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 11,063, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. That gives the RX 550 a 6.4% win. It is not a landslide, but it is consistent with the broader pattern: the RX 550's average benchmark score of 11,075 is 6.5% higher than the Tesla's 10,400.

The RX 550's other benchmark results put this OpenCL score in context. Its Geekbench Metal score of 20,838 is nearly double its OpenCL score, suggesting the card is particularly strong in Apple's Metal API. The Vulkan score of 12,270 is also higher than OpenCL, and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 127 rounds out a modern-API-friendly profile. The Tesla C2075 has no comparable results, so we cannot say how it would fare in those tests — but the absence of Vulkan support in its specifications strongly suggests it would not participate in Vulkan benchmarks at all.

The percentile data reinforces the RX 550's edge. The RX 550 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla sits at the 48th. That is a narrow gap, consistent with the single head-to-head result. The nearest rivals for each card also show they are in similar performance territory: the RX 550's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER at 0.3% higher average score, while the Tesla's closest is the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 0.8% higher. Both cards are mid-pack performers, but the RX 550 is slightly ahead of the Tesla within that pack.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 11,063 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the NVIDIA Tesla C2075's 10,400 by 6.4%. The RX 550 also has higher FP32 compute at 1,211.4 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 support modern graphics APIs?

A: No. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla C2075 has more bandwidth at 150.3 GB/s, compared to 112.0 GB/s for the RX 550. The Tesla achieves this with a 384-bit bus, while the RX 550 uses a 128-bit bus. However, the RX 550's memory clock is much higher at 1,750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) for the Tesla.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Tesla C2075 has a 247 W TDP, requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has better pixel and texture throughput?

A: The RX 550 leads in both. It achieves 18.93 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s for the Tesla, and 37.86 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. Despite the Tesla having more TMUs (56 versus 32) and more ROPs (48 versus 16), the RX 550's higher clocks win out.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RX 550 packs 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Tesla C2075 has 5.8 million per square millimeter. The RX 550 achieves this on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the Tesla uses a 40 nm process from TSMC.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon RX 550 for almost every use case. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, has a higher average benchmark score (11,075 versus 10,400), sits at a higher percentile (50th versus 48th), and supports modern APIs that the Tesla C2075 lacks entirely. If you need Vulkan, Metal, or DX12 performance, the RX 550 is the only option with data to show for it.

The Tesla C2075's advantages are limited to memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 6 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB, and 150.3 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s, make it the better choice for workloads that need large datasets in memory. But that comes at a steep cost: 247 W TDP versus 50 W, a larger physical footprint (248 mm versus 145 mm), and the need for external power connectors.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the RX 550 is the practical pick. It is smaller, cooler, more efficient, faster in compute, and supports modern graphics APIs. The Tesla C2075 is a relic from 2011 with a single benchmark result and no modern API support. Unless you specifically need 6 GB of VRAM or the wider 384-bit memory bus, the RX 550 wins on nearly every measurable axis.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 550 | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 5.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | N/A |

| Boost Clock | 1183 MHz | N/A |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB GDDR5 | 6 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 448 |

| TMUs | 32 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.93 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 37.86 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1,211.4 GFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | N/A |

| TDP | 50 W | 247 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | N/A |

| Length | 145 mm (5.7 inches) | 248 mm (9.8 inches) |

| Release Date | 2017-04-19 | 2011-07-24 |