GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and NVIDIA Quadro K5000 represent two distinct eras of professional GPU design, with the former built on the Fermi architecture and the latter on Kepler. While both are end-of-life products, the benchmark data provides a clear picture of their relative performance, particularly in compute workloads. The data shows a definitive, albeit narrow, edge for the Quadro K5000 in the available OpenCL benchmark, alongside significant architectural and specification divergences that inform their respective use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 points. This results in a performance delta of 8.9% in favor of the Quadro K5000, marking the sole win for the Kepler-based card in this head-to-head comparison. This is a substantial lead, though it is importantly the C2075 still holds its own in this compute-centric workload, remaining within a single-digit percentage of its newer counterpart.

To contextualize the C2075’s score, it sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 10,400. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, which scores 10,362 (a 0.4% difference), and the AMD Radeon RX 550X, which scores 10,481 (a -0.8% difference). The C2075 is also 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A and 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M275X. This clustering indicates that the C2075's compute performance is competitive with a range of much newer entry-level and mobile GPUs, proof of its raw compute throughput despite its age.

The Quadro K5000, on the other hand, scores 9,637 on average, placing it at the 46th percentile. This average is lower than its OpenCL score because it includes results from Metal and Vulkan tests, where it scores 6,324 and 11,169, respectively. Its nearest rivals are a tight group, including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645, a -0.1% difference), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653, a -0.2% difference), and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665, a -0.3% difference). Interestingly, the NVIDIA Tesla C2070, a predecessor to the C2075, is also nearby with a score of 9,716, a -0.8% difference. This shows that the K5000's average performance is closely matched by a spread of professional and consumer cards from various generations.

The single OpenCL comparison is definitive for that specific test, but the differing benchmark suites available for each card prevent a broader direct comparison. The C2075 has only a single OpenCL result, while the K5000 has results across three APIs. This means that while the K5000 wins the only shared test, the C2075's performance in other APIs remains unquantified in this data.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice between these two cards is clear for compute-heavy tasks. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is the faster card in the one benchmark where they directly compete, outperforming the Tesla C2075 by 8.9% in Geekbench OpenCL. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute performance, the K5000 is the superior choice based on this metric. Its additional support for Vulkan, with a score of 11,169, further suggests greater API flexibility for modern compute or rendering tasks that can leverage that interface.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075, despite its lower score, is not without merit. Its 48th percentile ranking is actually two points higher than the K5000's 46th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 10,400 is higher than the K5000's average of 9,637. This discrepancy is explained by the K5000's inclusion of a significantly lower Metal score in its average. Therefore, for users working in environments that rely on Metal, the C2075's lack of a Metal score means it may not be directly comparable, but its OpenCL result is robust. The data suggests the C2075 is a specialized compute device, while the K5000 is a more versatile professional card.

Given the data, the K5000 is the pick for users prioritizing raw OpenCL performance and API versatility. The C2075 is a viable alternative for those specifically focused on OpenCL workloads where its slightly lower score is offset by its higher overall percentile ranking and simpler driver model. The K5000’s lower power draw and display outputs also make it a more practical choice for a workstation environment, whereas the C2075’s single DVI output and higher power requirements position it as a dedicated compute accelerator.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is faster, scoring 11,418 compared to the NVIDIA Tesla C2075's 10,400, a difference of 8.9%.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 support the Vulkan API?

A: No, the data lists Vulkan support as null for the C2075, whereas the Quadro K5000 supports Vulkan version 1.2.175.

Q: How does the average benchmark score of the Tesla C2075 compare to its nearest rival?

A: The C2075's average score is 10,400. It is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550X.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K5000 has a higher memory bandwidth at 172.8 GB/s, while the Tesla C2075 has 150.3 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro K5000 has a higher pixel rate of 22.59 GPixel/s, compared to the Tesla C2075's 16.07 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the power consumption rating for each card?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the Quadro K5000 has a TDP of 122 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ significantly in their core specifications, reflecting their different design goals. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 features a higher memory clock of 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) compared to the Tesla C2075's 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). The K5000 also has a smaller memory bus (256 bit vs. 384 bit) and less memory (4 GB vs. 6 GB), yet achieves higher bandwidth due to its faster clock speed. In terms of processing units, the K5000 has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This gives the K5000 a massive advantage in shading and texture throughput, while the C2075 has more ROPs. The K5000 also has a higher base and boost clock of 706 MHz, whereas the C2075's base and boost clocks are not listed.

The physical and power profiles also differ. The Quadro K5000 is a longer card at 267 mm (10.5 inches) with a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the Tesla C2075 is 248 mm (9.8 inches) long. The K5000 requires a single 6-pin power connector and has a TDP of 122 W, while the C2075 needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector and has a TDP of 247 W. The display outputs also differ, with the K5000 offering 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the C2075 only has a single DVI output. The K5000 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark, representing a generational leap. The Tesla C2075 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture using the GF110 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.8M / mm². In contrast, the Quadro K5000 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, built on a more advanced 28 nm process. This newer process allows it to pack 3,540 million transistors into a much smaller 294 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.0M / mm².

These architectural differences translate directly into performance characteristics. The Fermi architecture in the C2075 is optimized for high double-precision compute, which is common in scientific computing, while the Kepler architecture in the K5000 focuses on power efficiency and higher single-precision throughput. The K5000's FP32 performance is rated at 2.169 TFLOPS, more than double the C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. This explains the K5000's higher OpenCL score. The K5000 also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the C2075 does not list Vulkan support, indicating a more modern feature set. The production status for both is end-of-life, with the C2075 released in 2011 and the K5000 in 2012. The C2075's predecessor is the Tesla, and its successor is Tesla Kepler; the K5000's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell.