NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 represent two completely different eras of GPU computing. The data shows a generational chasm in performance, features, and capabilities, with the modern Blackwell card utterly dominating the legacy Fermi part. However, each card has a specific profile that makes it suitable for distinct tasks, though the modern card's advantages are overwhelming in current workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmarks are not available in the data set, as the two products were tested with different workloads. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q was evaluated with the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, scoring 11,088 points. The Tesla C2075 was assessed using Geekbench OpenCL, achieving a score of 10,400 points. While these are not directly comparable metrics, examining their standing against their respective nearest rivals provides context for their relative performance tiers.

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q scores 11,088 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, which scores an identical 11,088 points, resulting in a 0% delta. It also edges out the AMD Radeon RX 550, which scores 11,075, by a slim 0.1% margin. The data shows it is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047 points) but trails the AMD FirePro W4300 by 1.2%, which scores 11,225. This indicates that in this particular DX12 test, the RTX PRO 6000 sits in a tightly contested mid-pack, with its performance being nearly indistinguishable from several lower-tier consumer cards.

The Tesla C2075, on the other hand, scores 10,400 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it at the 48th percentile. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, which scores 10,362, giving the Tesla a 0.4% advantage. It also outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273 points) by 1.2%. However, it trails the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481 points) by 0.8% and falls 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582 points). The Tesla's performance is similarly clustered among a group of older or lower-end parts, suggesting its compute capability is roughly on par with those devices in OpenCL workloads.

The biggest point of differentiation is the sheer scale of the modern card's specifications, which translate into a massive theoretical compute advantage. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q delivers 109.7 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Tesla C2075 offers 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). This represents a more than 100-fold difference in raw single-precision compute throughput. Similarly, the pixel rate of the RTX PRO 6000 is 437.8 GPixel/s versus the Tesla's 16.07 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 1,714.6 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. These are not incremental gains; they are orders of magnitude improvements that define the performance gulf between the two architectures.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q wins in virtually every category that matters for modern graphics and compute tasks. Its 96 GB of GDDR7 memory with 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth dwarfs the Tesla C2075's 6 GB of GDDR5 with 150.3 GB/s. This makes the Blackwell card suited for massive datasets, high-resolution textures, and large language model inference, where memory capacity and bandwidth are the primary bottlenecks. The presence of 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores further cements its dominance in ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated workloads, which the Tesla C2075 lacks entirely.

The Tesla C2075, being from the Fermi 2.0 architecture, has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor core hardware. Its strengths lie in its legacy compute capabilities. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 10,400, which is competitive with its nearest rivals. This suggests that for older, non-accelerated compute tasks that rely purely on raw FP32 or FP64 throughput, the Tesla can still hold its own against a specific set of contemporary low-end parts. Its 448 shading units can process legacy code that does not leverage modern API features. The Tesla's production status is "End-of-life," confirming that its niche is now limited to maintaining legacy systems or running very old software stacks that require its specific architecture.

The modern card also wins decisively on software features. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a limited feature set, and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. This means the RTX PRO 6000 can run the latest games and applications with full feature sets, while the Tesla is restricted to older APIs and will be incompatible with modern titles that require Vulkan or newer DirectX 12 features.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between the two GPUs is immense. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q is built on the GB202 chip using TSMC's 5 nm process node, while the Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip on a 40 nm process. This process shrink allows the Blackwell chip to pack 92,200 million transistors onto a 750 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 122.9 million per mm². In contrast, the Fermi chip contains 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, with a density of just 5.8 million per mm². This represents a more than 20-fold increase in transistor density, enabling the massive increase in core counts and features.

The core configuration differences are stark. The RTX PRO 6000 has 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Blackwell card also integrates 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores, whereas the Fermi card has none. The memory subsystem is equally divergent: the RTX PRO 6000 uses a 512-bit bus with GDDR7 memory running at 28 Gbps effective, while the Tesla uses a 384-bit bus with GDDR5 at 3.1 Gbps effective. The Blackwell card's 96 GB capacity is 16 times larger than the Tesla's 6 GB.

The feature sets reflect their respective eras. The RTX PRO 6000 supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Tesla is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are also a major difference: the Blackwell card has four DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, while the Tesla has a single DVI output. The Tesla C2075 also lacks any Vulkan support, making it incompatible with a wide range of modern software. The clock speeds also differ, with the Blackwell card boosting to 2280 MHz, while the Tesla's base and boost clocks are not specified in the data, only its memory clock of 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective).

The Verdict

The verdict is clear: the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q is a superior product in every measurable aspect of performance and capability. The data shows it is designed for modern, demanding workloads such as AI training, real-time ray tracing, and handling massive datasets, which the Tesla C2075 cannot even attempt. The Tesla C2075's 10,400 OpenCL score places it at the 48th percentile, while the RTX PRO 6000's 11,088 score is at the 50th percentile; this similarity in percentile ranking is misleading because they are measured on different tests and the absolute performance gap is enormous. The modern card's 109.7 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the Tesla's 1,027.7 GFLOPS is the definitive statistic. Anyone needing modern features, high memory bandwidth, or ray tracing should choose the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q.

The only scenario where the Tesla C2075 might be considered is for strictly legacy compute tasks that run on its Fermi architecture and do not benefit from the new hardware features. Its 300 W TDP is lower than the RTX PRO 6000's 300 W, which is surprisingly identical, but this is a minor point. Given that the Tesla is end-of-life and the RTX PRO 6000 is active, the choice is overwhelmingly in favor of the Blackwell card. The RTX PRO 6000 is the only viable option for future-proofing any serious compute or graphics workload.

FAQ

Q: How does the FP32 performance of the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q compare to the Tesla C2075?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 delivers 109.7 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Tesla C2075 offers 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). This is a more than 100-fold difference in raw single-precision compute throughput.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 has 96 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus with 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No, the Tesla C2075 from the Fermi 2.0 architecture has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The RTX PRO 6000 includes 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores.

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 has a 50th percentile ranking, while the Tesla C2075 has a 48th percentile ranking. Note that these are based on different benchmark tests (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 vs Geekbench OpenCL).

Q: What is the process node and transistor count for each GPU?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 is built on a 5 nm process with 92,200 million transistors. The Tesla C2075 is built on a 40 nm process with 3,000 million transistors.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 has a TDP of 300 W, and the Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W. The suggested PSU for the RTX PRO 6000 is 700 W, while the Tesla C2075 recommends a 550 W PSU.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two cards, based exclusively on the data provided.

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 92,200 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 750 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1035 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 2280 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Size | 96 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR7 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 512 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.79 TB/s | 150.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 24064 | 448 |

| TMUs | 752 | 56 |

| ROPs | 192 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 188 | Not specified |

| Tensor Cores | 752 | Not specified |

| Pixel Rate | 437.8 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,714.6 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 109.7 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 300 W | 247 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b | 1x DVI |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | Not specified |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |