GPU Comparison

NVIDIA’s Tesla C2075 and Quadro P4000 represent two distinct eras of professional GPU design, separated by nearly six years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows a clear generational divide: the Quadro P4000 delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 36,212, a staggering 71.3% higher than the Tesla C2075’s 10,400. This performance gap is not incremental; it is transformative, reflecting fundamental shifts in compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and feature support. The Tesla C2075, while a capable compute accelerator in its day, now sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the Quadro P4000 holds the 47th percentile, showing that despite the massive score difference, both cards occupy similar overall standing in the broader GPU landscape.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive victory for the Quadro P4000. The P4000 scores 36,212 against the C2075’s 10,400, a delta of -71.3% from the perspective of the older card. This means the Quadro P4000 is roughly 3.5 times faster in raw OpenCL compute performance. The sheer magnitude of this difference suggests that the C2075 is not merely outclassed but rendered obsolete for any modern compute workload that relies on OpenCL acceleration.

Looking at the Quadro P4000’s broader benchmark suite, it also runs DirectX 12 workloads with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,115, and in Passmark tests, it posts scores of 11,466 in G3D, 4,913 in GPU compute, and 786 in G2D. The Tesla C2075 has no corresponding scores in these tests, indicating the data collection focuses on OpenCL for the older card. The P4000’s Passmark DirectX 9 score of 181 versus its DirectX 10 score of 66 and DirectX 11 score of 86 reveals that the architecture handles legacy APIs well but scales even better with newer ones. The C2075’s single benchmark score of 10,400 places it within a narrow competitive band: it is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273), but it trails the AMD Radeon RX 550X by 0.8% (10,481) and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X by 1.7% (10,582). This shows the C2075 is essentially a mid-pack performer among older and lower-end mobile GPUs.

For the Quadro P4000, its average benchmark score of 9,665 is dragged down by the low Passmark DirectX scores (40 for DX12, 66 for DX10), but its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are exceptional. The Vulkan score of 41,786 is the highest single benchmark for the card, while its OpenCL score of 36,212 shows strong compute capability. When compared to its nearest rivals, the P4000 is just 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653), 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645), and 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637), but it trails the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 by 0.5% (9,716). This places the P4000 in a tightly contested mid-range segment where performance differences are measured in fractions of a percent.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P4000 wins unequivocally in every measurable compute and graphics workload included in the data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 36,212 crushes the C2075’s 10,400, and its Vulkan support (score of 41,786) gives it access to modern cross-platform graphics APIs that the C2075 lacks entirely. The P4000 also supports DirectX 12_1, while the C2075 only reaches DirectX 11_0, meaning the older card cannot execute the latest gaming or professional DirectX 12 workloads. For professional visualization tasks, the P4000’s Passmark G3D score of 11,466 indicates strong rasterization performance, while the C2075 has no equivalent score, suggesting it was never positioned for real-time graphics.

The Tesla C2075’s only theoretical advantage lies in its compute-centric legacy design. With 448 shading units and 56 texture mapping units, it was built for high-throughput floating-point calculations, but its FP32 performance of 1,027.7 GFLOPS is dwarfed by the P4000’s 5.304 TFLOPS. Where the C2075 might "win" is in specific legacy compute workloads that were optimized for Fermi’s architecture, but the data shows no benchmark where it outperforms the P4000. The C2075’s 6 GB of GDDR5 memory is also smaller than the P4000’s 8 GB, and its 150.3 GB/s bandwidth is far below the P4000’s 243.3 GB/s. The P4000 wins on memory capacity, bandwidth, and every computational metric, making it the superior choice for all modern tasks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.8 million per mm². In contrast, the Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a much smaller 314 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 22.9 million per mm². This four-fold increase in density is the primary driver of the P4000’s performance advantage, allowing more compute units in less space.

The compute core counts tell a similar story. The C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The P4000 has four times the shading units and double the TMUs, leading to a pixel rate of 94.72 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 165.8 GTexel/s, versus the C2075’s 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is where the gap is most stark: 5.304 TFLOPS for the P4000 versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the C2075. The P4000 also supports FP16 at 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature absent from the C2075’s spec sheet.

Memory architecture differs significantly as well. The C2075 uses a 384-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR5 at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), providing 150.3 GB/s. The P4000 uses a narrower 256-bit bus but with 8 GB of faster GDDR5 at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), achieving 243.3 GB/s. The P4000’s higher clock speeds (base 1202 MHz, boost 1480 MHz) versus the C2075’s unspecified base and boost clocks further widen the gap. The P4000 also supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1, while the C2075 is limited to DirectX 11_0 with no Vulkan support. Both cards share OpenGL 4.6, but the P4000 adds modern display outputs with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, versus the C2075’s single DVI port. Power efficiency is another differentiator: the P4000 draws 105 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU, while the C2075 consumes 247 W with a 550 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the superior GPU in nearly every measurable way. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 36,212 is 71.3% higher than the Tesla C2075’s 10,400, and its FP32 compute of 5.304 TFLOPS is over five times the C2075’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The P4000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and it offers modern API support (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4), higher memory bandwidth (243.3 GB/s), and double the memory capacity (8 GB versus 6 GB). The C2075’s only "win" is its legacy Fermi compute architecture, which might appeal to users running software locked to 2011-era code, but no benchmark evidence supports this advantage.

For any user choosing between these two, the Quadro P4000 is the clear pick for compute, graphics, or professional visualization. Its 47th percentile standing and tight competition with cards like the Quadro K5000 (0.3% ahead) shows it remains relevant in the mid-range, while the C2075’s 48th percentile and performance parity with the AMD Radeon RX 550X (0.8% behind) indicate it is a marginal performer today. The P4000 also offers a single-slot design, lower power draw (105 W versus 247 W), and modern display outputs, making it far more practical for workstation deployment. The Tesla C2075 is an end-of-life relic; the Quadro P4000, while also end-of-life, provides a compelling, data-backed upgrade path. Its launch MSRP was 815 USD, but the performance metrics justify its position.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 than the Tesla C2075 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 71.3% higher than the Tesla C2075’s 10,400. This makes the P4000 approximately 3.5 times faster in this specific compute benchmark.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 support Vulkan or modern DirectX?

A: No. The C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but it has no Vulkan support. The Quadro P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between the two cards?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 150.3 GB/s. The Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 243.3 GB/s, which is 93 GB/s higher.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and requires a 550 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro P4000 has a TDP of 105 W and a 300 W suggested PSU. The P4000 is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which card has better raw compute throughput (FP32)?

A: The Quadro P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, versus the Tesla C2075’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). The P4000 has roughly five times the single-precision throughput.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two architectures?

A: The C2075’s Fermi 2.0 chip has 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, for a density of 5.8M per mm². The P4000’s Pascal chip has 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, for a density of 22.9M per mm², which is nearly four times denser.