GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA Tesla C2075 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA professional GPU design, separated by two years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data places both cards at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier despite their generational gap. The Quadro K5100M edges ahead in the single available OpenCL benchmark, scoring 11,771 against the Tesla C2075's 10,400, a delta of -11.6% from the Tesla's perspective. However, the Tesla C2075 holds its own in the broader competitive landscape, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481 (0.8% ahead of the Tesla), while the Quadro K5100M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R9 M375 at 10,070 (0.3% behind the Quadro).

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5100M wins the only direct head-to-head comparison available, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11,771 versus the Tesla C2075's 10,400. This 11.6% margin represents a meaningful generational improvement in raw compute throughput. The Quadro also demonstrates superior peak specifications across nearly every computational metric: it delivers 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 performance compared to the Tesla's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, more than doubling the theoretical floating-point capability. The Quadro's texture rate of 98.69 GTexel/s dwarfs the Tesla's 32.14 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 24.67 GPixel/s exceeds the Tesla's 16.07 GPixel/s by a substantial margin.

The Tesla C2075, despite losing the head-to-head, claims victories in several specific hardware characteristics. Its memory bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s outperforms the Quadro's 115.2 GB/s, a 30% advantage that stems from a wider 384-bit memory bus compared to the Quadro's 256-bit interface. The Tesla also carries 6 GB of GDDR5 memory operating at 3.1 Gbps effective, whereas the Quadro offers 8 GB at 3.6 Gbps effective—the Tesla's smaller capacity is offset by its superior bandwidth. In terms of raster operations, the Tesla's 48 ROPs exceed the Quadro's 32 ROPs, suggesting potentially better performance in fill-rate-bound scenarios despite the Quadro's higher pixel rate due to its faster clock.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting two distinct design philosophies from NVIDIA. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 40 nm process. This chip integrates 3,000 million transistors on a massive 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The Fermi architecture was NVIDIA's first to support concurrent kernel execution and featured a unified memory architecture, though it lacked some of the efficiency improvements that later generations introduced.

The Quadro K5100M employs the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on TSMC's more advanced 28 nm process. This newer process allows 3,540 million transistors—18% more than the Fermi chip—to fit on a much smaller 294 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter, more than double the Tesla's density. The Kepler architecture introduced significant efficiency gains, including a new SMX streaming multiprocessor design that doubled the number of cores per scheduler compared to Fermi.

The shading unit counts tell a dramatic story: the Quadro packs 1,536 shading units against the Tesla's 448, a 3.4x increase. Similarly, the Quadro's 128 texture mapping units quadruple the Tesla's 56. The Kepler architecture's emphasis on increasing shader throughput rather than memory bandwidth is evident in these figures. Clock speeds also differ, with the Quadro running at a fixed 771 MHz (both base and boost) while the Tesla's clock is not specified in the available data. The Quadro's memory clock of 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) exceeds the Tesla's 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), though the Tesla's wider bus compensates in overall bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single benchmark comparison available—Geekbench OpenCL—shows a clear but not overwhelming victory for the Quadro K5100M. The Quadro scores 11,771 against the Tesla's 10,400, representing an 11.6% advantage. This margin aligns with the raw specification differences: the Quadro's FP32 throughput of 2.369 TFLOPS is roughly 130% higher than the Tesla's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, yet the actual benchmark delta is much smaller, suggesting that OpenCL workloads on this test do not scale perfectly with theoretical compute capability.

Looking at the nearest rival data provides additional context for each card's standing. The Tesla C2075's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, scores 10,362, which is 0.4% below the Tesla. The AMD Radeon RX 550X sits 0.8% above at 10,481, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A trails by 1.2% at 10,273. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X leads this group at 10,582, 1.7% ahead of the Tesla. These tight margins suggest the Tesla C2075 sits in a very competitive performance cluster where small architectural differences determine ranking.

The Quadro K5100M's rival cluster shows similar density. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 at 10,070 is just 0.3% behind, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M at 10,013 trails by 0.3%. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M scores 9,959, sitting 0.8% behind, and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 9,846 is 2% behind. The Quadro K5100M's 11,771 score places it clearly above this cluster, indicating that its OpenCL performance is more decisively superior to its immediate competitors than the Tesla's is to its own rivals.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward case: the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M outperforms the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 in the available benchmark, wins the head-to-head comparison, and offers dramatically higher raw compute specifications across nearly every metric. The Quadro's 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 98.69 GTexel/s texture rate, and 1,536 shading units represent a generational leap over the Fermi-based Tesla. For compute-heavy workloads that scale with shader throughput, the Quadro is the clear choice based on benchmark evidence.

However, the Tesla C2075 retains specific advantages that matter in certain scenarios. Its 150.3 GB/s memory bandwidth, achieved through a 384-bit bus, exceeds the Quadro's 115.2 GB/s despite the Quadro's faster memory clock. Applications that are memory-bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound could see relatively better performance on the Tesla. The Tesla's 48 ROPs versus the Quadro's 32 also suggest an advantage in pixel-heavy workloads, though the Quadro's higher pixel rate partially compensates.

The form factor difference is significant: the Tesla C2075 is a dual-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors with a 247 W TDP, while the Quadro K5100M is an MXM Module with no power connectors and a 100 W TDP. The Tesla's suggested PSU is 550 W, whereas the Quadro requires none specified. This makes the Quadro suitable for portable workstations, while the Tesla demands a desktop workstation with substantial power delivery. The Tesla C2075 offers a DVI display output, while the Quadro's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile-oriented design.

Users prioritizing maximum compute throughput in a mobile form factor should select the Quadro K5100M. Those requiring higher memory bandwidth or a traditional desktop expansion card form factor, and who can accommodate the higher power draw, might find the Tesla C2075 more appropriate despite its lower benchmark score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance based on the benchmark data?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the Tesla C2075's 10,400, representing an 11.6% advantage. The Quadro also lists 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the Tesla's 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory systems differ between these two cards?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 384-bit bus and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla's bandwidth is 30% higher despite the Quadro's faster 3.6 Gbps effective memory clock versus 3.1 Gbps.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a 247 W TDP, requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, and specifies a 550 W suggested PSU. The Quadro K5100M has a 100 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 1,536 shading units and 128 TMUs. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units and 56 TMUs. The Quadro's shading unit count is 3.4 times higher, and its TMU count is 2.3 times higher.

Q: How does the manufacturing process differ between the two GPUs?

A: The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip on a 40 nm process with 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die. The Quadro K5100M uses the GK104 chip on a 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.0M/mm² versus 5.8M/mm².

Q: What API support differences exist between the two cards?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K5100M additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Tesla C2075 lists no Vulkan support.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 | NVIDIA Quadro K5100M |

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

| Chip | GF110 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | Tesla Fermi (x20xx) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.8M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 771 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 448 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 56 | 128 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 24.67 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 98.69 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 2.369 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 247 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Support | Not specified | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2011-07-24 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | Tesla | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Tesla Kepler | Quadro Maxwell-M |