AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The data splits these two cards across completely different eras and purposes, so the "wins" are not about direct competition but about which workload profile each was built to serve. The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT claims the only head-to-head benchmark in the database, but that single victory masks a deeper story about what each card does best.

The RX 6500 XT dominates in modern, API-heavy workloads. Its benchmark suite spans DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, Vulkan, OpenCL, and compute tests, and it scores consistently across all of them. The PassMark G3D score of 9608 places it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs, which means it sits slightly above the midpoint of the entire database. Its nearest rivals are all mainstream gaming cards: the GeForce GTX 1080 (avg score 11960, delta -1%), GTX 960A (11998, delta -1.3%), GTX 1660 (11680, delta +1.4%), and the Radeon RX 7800 XT (11627, delta +1.9%). That clustering within a few percentage points shows the RX 6500 XT is a balanced mid-range performer, not a specialist.

The Tesla C2070, by contrast, is a compute-oriented accelerator from 2011. Its only recorded benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 9716, placing it in the 47th percentile. Its nearest rivals are professional and workstation cards: Tesla M10 (9724, delta -0.1%), Quadro P4000 (9665, delta +0.5%), Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9653, delta +0.7%), and GeForce GTX 1070 (9780, delta -0.7%). The tight grouping around 9700 suggests the C2070's raw compute throughput is comparable to much newer entry-level workstation parts, but its complete lack of modern API support (no Vulkan, DirectX 12 limited to 11_0) means it cannot run contemporary games or graphics workloads at all.

So the use-case split is stark: the RX 6500 XT wins everywhere a consumer would actually use a GPU today, while the C2070 only "wins" in the sense of having 6 GB of memory and a 384-bit bus, which are irrelevant for gaming but potentially useful for legacy compute tasks that require large memory buffers without needing modern features.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by more than a decade of semiconductor evolution, and the facts in the database make that gap concrete. The RX 6500 XT uses the Navi 24 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The Tesla C2070 uses the GF100 chip on Fermi architecture, also from TSMC, but on a 40 nm process. It contains 3,100 million transistors spread across a much larger 529 mm² die, giving a density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter. That is a 8.6x density advantage for the RX 6500 XT, and it shows in every metric.

The RX 6500 XT has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 16 ray-tracing cores. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with no ray-tracing cores. Its API support is DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan at all. The feature set gap is enormous: the RX 6500 XT can handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing, mesh shaders, and variable rate shading; the C2070 predates all of those concepts.

Memory configurations also differ fundamentally. The RX 6500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, achieving 143.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The C2070 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, achieving 143.4 GB/s. The bandwidth figures are nearly identical (a 0.3% difference), but the bus widths and memory types are from different eras. The 384-bit bus on the C2070 is physically wider to compensate for slower GDDR5, while the RX 6500 XT relies on faster GDDR6 to hit similar throughput on a much narrower bus.

Process node and power tell the rest of the story. The RX 6500 XT has a TDP of 107 W, the C2070 has a TDP of 238 W. The RX 6500 XT uses a single 6-pin power connector and suggests a 300 W PSU; the C2070 needs a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector and a 550 W PSU. The RX 6500 XT is also physically shorter (no length listed in the database, but it is a dual-slot card), while the C2070 is 248 mm (9.8 inches) long.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head test between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 6500 XT scores 48289, while the C2070 scores 9716. That is a delta of 397%, meaning the RX 6500 XT is roughly 5x faster in this OpenCL compute test. The margin is so large that it is not a close contest; it is a generational obliteration.

What does that score mean in context? Geekbench OpenCL measures a mix of compute workloads including image processing, physics simulation, and general-purpose math. The RX 6500 XT's 5.765 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput (from the database) dwarfs the C2070's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, which is about 1.03 TFLOPS. That is a 5.6x raw throughput advantage, and the benchmark result of 397% delta aligns closely with that ratio. The RX 6500 XT also has FP16 support at 11.53 TFLOPS (2:1), which the C2070 lacks entirely (no FP16 listed).

The C2070's only other recorded metrics are its pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s and texture rate of 32.14 GTexel/s, both far below the RX 6500 XT's 90.08 GPixel/s and 180.2 GTexel/s. In every measurable graphics or compute dimension, the RX 6500 XT is multiple times faster. The C2070 does have one advantage: 6 GB of memory versus 4 GB, but that does not translate into any benchmark win in the database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is the only viable choice for any modern workload. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark by 397%, supports contemporary APIs (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4), includes ray-tracing cores, and does all of this at a lower TDP (107 W vs 238 W) with a smaller die and newer process node. Its average benchmark score of 11842 places it in the 51st percentile, right alongside mainstream gaming cards like the GTX 1660 and RX 7800 XT.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2070, with its average score of 9716 and 47th percentile, is a relic. It has no Vulkan support, no ray tracing, a DirectX 12 that only reaches feature level 11_0, and a 40 nm process that makes it inefficient by every measure. Its only redeeming qualities are 6 GB of memory and a 384-bit bus, but those do not appear in any benchmark win.

For a gamer, a workstation user, or anyone running modern software, the RX 6500 XT is the clear pick. For a collector or someone maintaining legacy compute infrastructure that specifically requires Fermi architecture and does not need modern APIs, the C2070 exists, but the database shows no scenario where it outperforms the RX 6500 XT. The verdict is decisive: choose the RX 6500 XT unless you have a hard requirement for the C2070's specific memory size or bus width.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT has an average benchmark score of 11842, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 has an average of 9716. The RX 6500 XT also sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, compared to the C2070's 47th.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6500 XT in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 6500 XT scores 48289 versus the C2070's 9716, a delta of 397%. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: Does the Tesla C2070 support Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists Vulkan as null for the C2070, while the RX 6500 XT supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RX 6500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 143.9 GB/s bandwidth. The C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The bandwidth is nearly identical, but the bus widths and memory types are very different.

Q: Which card has ray-tracing cores?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, which has 16 ray-tracing cores. The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 has none listed.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The RX 6500 XT is rated at 107 W with a suggested 300 W PSU, while the C2070 is rated at 238 W with a suggested 550 W PSU. The C2070 also requires two power connectors (6-pin plus 8-pin) versus the RX 6500 XT's single 6-pin.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT | NVIDIA Tesla C2070 |

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

| Chip | Navi 24 | GF100 |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Fermi |

| Process node | 6 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 3,100 million |

| Die size | 107 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor density | 50.5M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory size | 4 GB GDDR6 | 6 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 143.9 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1024 | 448 |

| Texture mapping units | 64 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Ray-tracing cores | 16 | None |

| Pixel rate | 90.08 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 180.2 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 5.765 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 11.53 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 107 W | 238 W |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 550 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI |

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

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | None |

| Release date | 2022-01-18 | 2011-07-24 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | Not listed |

| Length | Not listed | 248 mm (9.8 inches) |