AMD Radeon RX 550X vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the AMD Radeon RX 550X and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are remarkably close. The Tesla C2070 scores 9716, while the RX 550X trails by just 0.6% with a score of 9662. This near-parity is striking given the architectural chasm between the two cards, but it also means the data does not reveal a decisive victory for either product in raw compute throughput. Still, the direction of the result favors NVIDIA in this single head-to-head matchup, giving the Tesla C2070 a 1–0 win tally in the provided comparison set.

Looking at each card's broader benchmark context, the RX 550X posts an average benchmark score of 10481 across the tests that include it, which places it at the 49th percentile of all GPUs. The Tesla C2070's average score is lower at 9716, and it sits at the 47th percentile. This discrepancy between the head-to-head result and the average scores suggests that the RX 550X benefits from additional benchmark scenarios — specifically, its Geekbench Vulkan score of 11299, which is not available for the Tesla C2070. The Vulkan result pulls the RX 550X's average upward, while the Tesla C2070 has no equivalent data point to contribute. In the OpenCL test alone, the two are effectively tied, with the Tesla C2070 holding a razor-thin edge.

The nearest-rival data reinforces this picture. The RX 550X's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R9 M275X, which scores 10582 and leads by 1%; the Tesla C2075 trails it by 0.8% with a score of 10400. The Tesla C2070's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla M10 at 9724, which leads by 0.1%, and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 trails the Tesla C2070 by 0.5% at 9665. These comparisons show both cards operating in a tightly packed performance band, where a few percentage points separate them from their immediate peers. The RX 550X's average score places it roughly 8% above the Tesla C2070's average, but that gap is driven entirely by the Vulkan test, not by the shared OpenCL workload.

# Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon tells a story of two very different design philosophies separated by nearly seven years of GPU evolution. The AMD Radeon RX 550X is built on the Lexa chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a die size of 103 mm², yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Tesla C2070, by contrast, uses the GF100 chip with Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,100 million transistors spread across a much larger 529 mm² die, translating to just 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter — a density less than a third of the AMD part.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The RX 550X ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla C2070 offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit interface, achieving 143.4 GB/s — roughly 49% more bandwidth. The Tesla's memory clock runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the RX 550X's memory operates at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), though the wider bus compensates for the lower clock. In compute resources, the RX 550X has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Tesla C2070 has fewer shading units at 448, but more TMUs at 56 and triple the ROPs at 48. The pixel rate favors AMD slightly at 18.93 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s, while texture rates are closer: 37.86 GTexel/s for AMD and 32.14 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

Peak FP32 performance is higher on the RX 550X at 1,211.4 GFLOPS, compared to 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Tesla C2070 — a 17.9% advantage for the smaller, newer chip. The RX 550X also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, delivering 1,211.4 GFLOPS, while the Tesla C2070 has no listed FP16 capability. Power consumption diverges dramatically: the RX 550X draws 50 W, while the Tesla C2070 requires 238 W — nearly five times as much. This is reflected in the power connectors: the AMD card needs none, relying on the PCIe slot alone, while the NVIDIA card requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU rating is 250 W for the RX 550X versus 550 W for the Tesla C2070.

# FAQ

Q: Which card has higher peak FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X delivers 1,211.4 GFLOPS, which is 17.9% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla C2070's 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla C2070 has a significant bandwidth advantage at 143.4 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s for the RX 550X, thanks to its wider 384-bit bus compared to the 128-bit bus on the AMD card.

Q: Why does the RX 550X have a higher average benchmark score despite losing the OpenCL head-to-head?

A: The RX 550X has an additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 11299, which raises its average to 10481. The Tesla C2070 only has the OpenCL score of 9716, so its average remains at that level. The Vulkan test is not available for the Tesla C2070.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 550X has a 50 W TDP and requires no auxiliary power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Tesla C2070 has a 238 W TDP, needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and calls for a 550 W PSU.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: No. The RX 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Tesla C2070 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How does the transistor density compare between the two chips?

A: The RX 550X's Lexa chip achieves 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter on a 14 nm process, while the Tesla C2070's GF100 chip manages only 5.9 million per square millimeter on a 40 nm process.

# The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a nuanced picture. In the only shared workload — Geekbench OpenCL — the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 wins by 0.6%, a margin that is effectively a statistical tie. The RX 550X counters with a 17.9% advantage in peak FP32 throughput and a Vulkan score of 11299 that the Tesla cannot match. For applications that leverage Vulkan, the RX 550X is clearly the more capable part. For workloads reliant on OpenCL alone, the two are nearly indistinguishable, with the Tesla holding a negligible edge.

However, the broader context favors the RX 550X. Its average benchmark score of 10481 is 7.9% higher than the Tesla's 9716, and it achieves this with dramatically lower power consumption — 50 W versus 238 W. The RX 550X also offers a more modern feature set, including DirectX 12_0 support and Vulkan 1.3, while the Tesla C2070 is limited to DirectX 11_0 and lacks Vulkan entirely. The Tesla's advantages are confined to memory capacity (6 GB versus 4 GB) and bandwidth (143.4 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), plus a wider 384-bit bus that may benefit certain memory-intensive compute tasks.

For buyers prioritizing energy efficiency, modern API support, and higher compute throughput per watt, the RX 550X is the data-supported choice. For those needing maximum memory bandwidth and capacity in legacy OpenCL compute environments, the Tesla C2070 remains competitive, though its 238 W power draw and dual-connector requirement make it a heavier system burden. The RX 550X also occupies a higher percentile rank (49th versus 47th), indicating slightly better standing across the GPU landscape. Given the near-identical OpenCL performance and the RX 550X's substantial efficiency and feature advantages, the data leans toward the AMD card as the more balanced offering, with the Tesla retaining appeal only in narrow memory-bandwidth-bound scenarios.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 550X | NVIDIA Tesla C2070 |

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

| Chip | Lexa | GF100 |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1183 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 143.4 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 Performance | 1,211.4 GFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 50 W | 238 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 | Not listed |

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

| Release Date | 2018-12-15 | 2011-07-24 |

| Generation | Polaris (RX 500X) | Tesla Fermi (x20xx) |

| Predecessor | Polaris | Tesla |

| Successor | Vega | Tesla Kepler |