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

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 represent two vastly different eras of GPU computing. The data shows a workstation flagship from 2025 built on Blackwell 2.0, while the Tesla C2075 is an end-of-life compute card from 2011 based on Fermi 2.0. Their benchmark scores, architectural resources, and production statuses place them at opposite ends of the performance spectrum, with the newer card delivering over ten times the raw FP32 throughput of the older one.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results clearly divide these two GPUs into distinct use-case categories. The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q wins every available performance comparison by a massive margin, with an average benchmark score of 11088 across its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This places it at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rival—the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q—scores an identical 11088, showing a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 550 trails slightly at 11075 (0.1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is 0.4% behind at 11047. The AMD FirePro W4300 actually scores higher at 11225, putting it 1.2% ahead of the RTX PRO 6000D.

The Tesla C2075, by contrast, derives its score from a Geekbench OpenCL test, achieving 10400 points. This puts it at the 48th percentile, with its closest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A at 10273 (1.2% behind). The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 10362 (0.4% behind), while the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10481 is 0.8% ahead. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X leads the pack at 10582, 1.7% ahead of the C2075.

The practical interpretation is straightforward. The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q is built for modern, demanding workloads like real-time ray tracing, AI inference, and high-resolution 3D rendering, where its massive shading core count and tensor cores come into play. The Tesla C2075, with its single DVI output and lack of RT or tensor cores, is a legacy compute accelerator suited for older scientific or simulation tasks that do not require modern graphics APIs or display connectivity. The C2075 has no wins in any head-to-head benchmark category, as the head-to-head comparison table is empty.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is enormous and defines their respective capabilities. The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q uses the GB202 chip fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 92,200 million transistors into a 750 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 122.9 million per square millimeter. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip on a 40 nm process, with 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 5.8 million per square millimeter. The newer chip has roughly 30 times more transistors on a die that is only 1.44 times larger.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The RTX PRO 6000D features 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. That is a 16x difference in capacity and an 11.9x difference in bandwidth. The shading unit count is similarly lopsided: 24,064 shading units on the RTX PRO 6000D versus 448 on the Tesla C2075. Texture mapping units number 752 versus 56, and ROPs are 192 versus 48.

The RTX PRO 6000D adds 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Tesla C2075. This makes the newer card capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads, while the older card relies solely on traditional compute. The RTX PRO 6000D also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Tesla C2075 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark entries in the data, meaning the two cards were never tested against each other in the same application. However, the available benchmark scores from different test suites allow for a comparative analysis. The RTX PRO 6000D scores 11088 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is a modern, graphics-intensive test that stresses ray tracing and DX12 features. The Tesla C2075 scores 10400 in Geekbench OpenCL, which measures general-purpose compute performance across a variety of workloads.

Interpreting these numbers requires caution, as they come from different tests with different scoring scales. What the data does show is that the RTX PRO 6000D is competitive with modern midrange GPUs like the AMD Radeon RX 550 and GTX 1650 SUPER, scoring within 0.4% of both. The Tesla C2075, meanwhile, sits among much older or lower-end parts like the RX 6500M and GTX 950A. The performance gap in raw FP32 throughput is stark: the RTX PRO 6000D delivers 110.1 TFLOPS, while the Tesla C2075 manages 1,027.7 GFLOPS, which is roughly 1.03 TFLOPS. That is a factor of 107 in favor of the newer card.

The pixel rate tells a similar story, with the RTX PRO 6000D hitting 439.3 GPixel/s against 16.07 GPixel/s for the Tesla C2075. Texture rate is 1,720.6 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. For FP16 compute, the RTX PRO 6000D achieves 110.1 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Tesla C2075 has no listed FP16 capability at all.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q delivers 110.1 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Tesla C2075. That is roughly a 107x advantage for the newer card.

Q: Can the Tesla C2075 handle modern graphics APIs like Vulkan?

A: No. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support. The RTX PRO 6000D supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

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

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

A: No. The Tesla C2075 has no RT cores or tensor cores. The RTX PRO 6000D includes 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q is listed as Active, with a release date of 2025-03-17. The Tesla C2075 is End-of-life, released on 2011-07-24, with a successor named Tesla Kepler.

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the Tesla C2075 is at the 48th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 5 nm for the RTX PRO 6000D versus 40 nm for the Tesla C2075. Transistor count is 92,200 million versus 3,000 million, and die size is 750 mm² versus 520 mm². The RTX PRO 6000D has a base clock of 1590 MHz and a boost clock of 2288 MHz, while the Tesla C2075 lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective).

Memory size is 96 GB versus 6 GB, type is GDDR7 versus GDDR5, bus width is 512-bit versus 384-bit, and bandwidth is 1.79 TB/s versus 150.3 GB/s. Shading units are 24,064 versus 448, TMUs are 752 versus 56, and ROPs are 192 versus 48. The RTX PRO 6000D has 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores; the Tesla C2075 has none. Pixel rate is 439.3 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 1,720.6 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 110.1 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS, and FP16 is 110.1 TFLOPS for the newer card versus null for the older one.

TDP is 300 W versus 247 W, with the RTX PRO 6000D requiring a 700 W suggested PSU and a single 16-pin connector, while the Tesla C2075 needs a 550 W PSU and uses a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1b versus 1x DVI. The RTX PRO 6000D measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width; the Tesla C2075 is 248 mm long with no listed height or width. Both are dual-slot cards. The RTX PRO 6000D has a launch MSRP of 8,565 USD, while the Tesla C2075 has no listed MSRP.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice clear for any modern workload. The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q is the only viable option for tasks requiring ray tracing, tensor core acceleration, high-bandwidth memory, or modern display connectivity. Its 96 GB of GDDR7 memory and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth are essential for large datasets in AI training or high-resolution rendering. The 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated features that the Tesla C2075 cannot perform at all. The newer card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with current software ecosystems.

The Tesla C2075 is a legacy product with no path forward for modern graphics or compute workloads. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for contemporary datasets, and its lack of FP16 support limits its usefulness in mixed-precision compute. The absence of RT and tensor cores means it cannot accelerate AI or ray-traced workloads. Its single DVI output restricts it to basic display configurations, and its PCIe 2.0 interface bottlenecks data transfer compared to the PCIe 5.0 of the newer card.

If the task involves anything released in the last decade, the RTX PRO 6000D wins without contest. The Tesla C2075 remains relevant only for legacy applications that specifically require Fermi architecture compute, and even then, its end-of-life status means no further driver or software support. The benchmark scores reflect this divide: the RTX PRO 6000D competes with modern midrange GPUs, while the Tesla C2075 sits alongside 2010s-era mobile and entry-level parts. For any builder or analyst, the RTX PRO 6000D is the only sensible choice unless the requirement is explicitly for a discontinued 2011 compute card.