AMD Radeon Vega 8 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores of the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and AMD Radeon Vega 8 compare?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has an average benchmark score of 10,400, while the AMD Radeon Vega 8 averages 9,221. The Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, and the Vega 8 sits at the 45th percentile.

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins with a score of 10,400 versus 8,822 for the AMD Radeon Vega 8, a lead of 17.9%.

Q: What APIs does each GPU support?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the power draw of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and requires a 550 W suggested power supply. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 has a TDP of 25 W and needs no power connectors.

Q: What memory configurations do these two GPUs use?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: What is the release timeline for these products?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 was released on July 24, 2011, and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 was released on February 11, 2018. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is built on the GF110 chip using the Fermi 2.0 architecture, produced on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Tesla Fermi generation (x20xx). The AMD Radeon Vega 8 uses the Raven chip with GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, and belongs to the Vega IGP (Raven Ridge) generation.

The manufacturing geometries differ substantially. The Tesla C2075 packs 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.8M per mm². The Vega 8 integrates 4,940 million transistors on a much smaller 210 mm² die, achieving 23.5M per mm². This makes the Vega 8 roughly four times denser in transistor packing, a direct consequence of the newer 14 nm node versus 40 nm.

Core configurations also differ. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operation units. The Vega 8 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The Tesla C2075 therefore has significantly more ROPs (48 versus 8), while the Vega 8 has more shaders (512 versus 448) and fewer TMUs (32 versus 56).

Clock behavior differs as well. The Tesla C2075 lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). The Vega 8 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, with memory speed governed by the system. The Vega 8 also supports FP16 at 2.253 TFLOPS (2:1), while the Tesla C2075 has no FP16 figure listed.

The Tesla C2075 is a dual-slot, discrete card with 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, a 247 W TDP, and a 550 W suggested PSU. The Vega 8 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no slot width, no power connectors, and a 25 W TDP. The Tesla C2075 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and outputs 1x DVI; the Vega 8 uses an IGP bus interface and its display outputs are motherboard dependent.

API support also separates them. The Vega 8 reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the Tesla C2075 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by workload type. For raw compute throughput in OpenCL, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is the stronger part. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 10,400 beats the Vega 8's 8,822 by 17.9%, and its average benchmark score is higher at 10,400 versus 9,221. The Tesla C2075 also has far more ROPs (48 versus 8) and a dedicated 6 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth, which suits memory-heavy rendering tasks.

The AMD Radeon Vega 8, however, is the more modern and efficient design. It has a 25 W TDP versus 247 W, supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), and includes FP16 capability. Its boost clock of 1100 MHz and 512 shading units give it a higher FP32 figure of 1,126.4 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Tesla C2075. It also has a higher texture rate at 35.20 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s.

For buyers who need a discrete compute card with mature OpenCL performance, the Tesla C2075 is the choice. For integrated graphics in a low-power system with modern API support, the Vega 8 is the only realistic option, as the Tesla C2075 cannot be slotted into an IGP configuration. The Vega 8 also has a higher average score on Geekbench Metal (10,706) and Geekbench Vulkan (8,134), though the Tesla C2075 has no recorded Metal or Vulkan scores to compare directly.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category.

• Process Node: Tesla C2075 at 40 nm; Vega 8 at 14 nm.
• Foundry: TSMC for Tesla C2075; GlobalFoundries for Vega 8.
• Transistors: 3,000 million versus 4,940 million.
• Die Size: 520 mm² versus 210 mm².
• Transistor Density: 5.8M / mm² versus 23.5M / mm².
• Base Clock: None listed for Tesla C2075; 300 MHz for Vega 8.
• Boost Clock: None listed for Tesla C2075; 1100 MHz for Vega 8.
• Memory Clock: 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) for Tesla C2075; system shared for Vega 8.
• Memory Size: 6 GB GDDR5 versus system shared.
• Memory Bus Width: 384 bit versus system shared.
• Memory Bandwidth: 150.3 GB/s versus system dependent.
• Shading Units: 448 versus 512.
• TMUs: 56 versus 32.
• ROPs: 48 versus 8.
• Pixel Rate: 16.07 GPixel/s versus 8.800 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: 32.14 GTexel/s versus 35.20 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 1,126.4 GFLOPS.
• FP16: None listed versus 2.253 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: 247 W versus 25 W.
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus IGP.
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin versus none.
• Suggested PSU: 550 W versus none listed.
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus IGP.
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI versus motherboard dependent.
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1).
• Vulkan Support: None listed versus 1.3.
• Release Date: July 24, 2011 versus February 11, 2018.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400, and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 scores 8,822. That is a 17.9% advantage for the Tesla C2075, a decisive margin in compute workloads that rely on OpenCL.

The Vega 8 does have additional benchmark entries that the Tesla C2075 lacks. Its Geekbench Metal score is 10,706, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 8,134. The Tesla C2075 has no Metal or Vulkan scores recorded, so no head-to-head comparison is possible on those APIs. However, the Vega 8's Metal score is higher than the Tesla C2075's OpenCL score, and its Vulkan score sits below the Tesla C2075's OpenCL result.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The Tesla C2075's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10,362 (0.4% difference), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A at 10,273 (1.2% ahead). On the downside, the AMD Radeon RX 550X scores 10,481 (0.8% higher) and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X scores 10,582 (1.7% higher). The Tesla C2075 essentially trades blows with this group, landing within roughly two percent of all four rivals.

The Vega 8's nearest rivals cluster tightly around its 9,221 average. The AMD Radeon 890M is 0.1% ahead at 9,210, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is 0.6% ahead at 9,273, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 is 0.8% ahead at 9,294, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M is 0.9% ahead at 9,302. The Vega 8 sits at the bottom of this group, but only by a narrow margin.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins in OpenCL compute. Its 17.9% lead over the Vega 8 in Geekbench OpenCL is the single largest measured gap in this comparison. It also wins decisively in pixel throughput, with 16.07 GPixel/s versus 8.800 GPixel/s, a near doubling. The Tesla C2075 has 48 ROPs versus 8, which explains that advantage and points to a strength in fill-rate-bound rendering. Its dedicated 6 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth is also a clear win for workloads that need consistent, high-bandwidth local memory rather than relying on system shared memory.

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 wins in several other areas. It has a higher texture rate at 35.20 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. It has more shading units (512 versus 448) and a higher FP32 throughput at 1,126.4 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS. It also has FP16 support at 2.253 TFLOPS, which the Tesla C2075 lacks entirely. The Vega 8 supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Tesla C2075 caps at DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan. In power efficiency, the difference is stark: 25 W versus 247 W TDP, making the Vega 8 far more suitable for compact, low-power systems.

The use-case split is straightforward. The Tesla C2075 is for OpenCL-centric compute and fill-rate-heavy rendering on a discrete card with dedicated memory. The Vega 8 is for integrated graphics environments where modern API support, FP16 compute, and low power draw matter more than raw OpenCL performance or pixel fill rate.