AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively one-sided. The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT scores 48,289 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 manages 10,400 points. That is a 364.3% advantage for the AMD card, a margin so large that it effectively places the two products in completely different performance tiers.

To put that score into context, the RX 6500 XT sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 11,842 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080, which scores 11,960 (a 1% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660, which scores 11,680 (1.4% behind). The Tesla C2075, by contrast, ranks at the 48th percentile with an average score of 10,400, and its nearest rivals are far less powerful parts: the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362, 0.4% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481, 0.8% ahead).

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the only head-to-head test available, but it aligns with the broader pattern in the database. The RX 6500 XT also has recorded scores in Passmark G3D (9,608), Passmark GPU Compute (4,456), and Geekbench Vulkan (54,724), all of which demonstrate a modern graphics architecture capable of substantial compute throughput. The Tesla C2075 has no such entries, likely due to its age and specialized compute-oriented positioning. In raw compute terms, the RX 6500 XT is the clear winner, and the data shows no scenario where the Tesla C2075 comes out ahead in any recorded benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras of GPU design, and the architectural gap explains much of the performance disparity. The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured 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 NVIDIA Tesla C2075, in contrast, uses the GF110 chip based on the much older Fermi 2.0 architecture, built on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 3,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 520 mm² die, giving a density of just 5.8 million transistors per square millimeter.

The process node difference is the single largest architectural factor. A 6 nm process versus a 40 nm process means the RX 6500 XT can fit more than twice the transistors into one-fifth the die area, while consuming far less power. The RX 6500 XT has a TDP of 107 W, while the Tesla C2075 draws 247 W. That is a 140 W gap, and it means the AMD card delivers roughly 4.7 times the OpenCL score while using less than half the power.

The memory architectures are also fundamentally different. The RX 6500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 2248 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 143.9 GB/s. The Tesla C2075 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, with a memory clock of 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s. Despite the Tesla having a wider bus and more memory, the bandwidth figures are nearly identical, which speaks to how much faster modern GDDR6 is per pin.

Feature support also differs sharply. The RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded. The AMD card also includes 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Fermi-based Tesla. The RX 6500 XT has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs; the Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. While the Tesla has more ROPs, the RX 6500 XT compensates with far higher clock speeds and modern shader efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT wins in every measurable category. The OpenCL compute test shows a 364.3% lead, and the RX 6500 XT also posts strong scores in Vulkan (54,724), Passmark G3D (9,608), and Passmark GPU Compute (4,456). Its pixel rate of 90.08 GPixel/s and texture rate of 180.2 GTexel/s are far ahead of the Tesla's 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s. For any workload involving modern graphics APIs, ray tracing, or general compute, the RX 6500 XT is the superior choice.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 does have advantages in specific areas, though they are not reflected in benchmark scores. It offers 6 GB of memory versus 4 GB, which could matter for workloads that require larger datasets to reside on the GPU. Its 384-bit memory bus is also wider, and its 48 ROPs exceed the RX 6500 XT's 32. For applications that are memory-capacity bound rather than compute bound, the Tesla may still have a niche. Additionally, the Tesla C2075 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the RX 6500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The older card's full x16 connection may be more compatible with legacy systems that lack PCIe 4.0 support.

The Tesla also has a longer physical footprint at 248 mm, versus a length that is not recorded for the RX 6500 XT, and it requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, while the RX 6500 XT needs only a single 6-pin. The suggested power supply rating is 550 W for the Tesla and 300 W for the AMD card, making the RX 6500 XT far easier to integrate into existing systems.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The RX 6500 XT uses a 6 nm process, the Tesla C2075 uses 40 nm. The AMD card has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die; the NVIDIA card has 3,000 million on a 520 mm² die. Transistor density is 50.5M per mm² versus 5.8M per mm².

Clock speeds: the RX 6500 XT has a base clock of 2310 MHz, a boost clock of 2815 MHz, and a game clock of 2610 MHz. The Tesla C2075 has no base, boost, or game clock recorded. Memory clocks are 2248 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the AMD card and 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA card.

Memory: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 143.9 GB/s bandwidth versus 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units are 1,024 versus 448. TMUs are 64 versus 56. ROPs are 32 versus 48. The RX 6500 XT has 16 ray tracing cores; the Tesla has none.

Pixel rate is 90.08 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 180.2 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 5.765 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS. FP16 is 11.53 TFLOPS (2:1) for the AMD card; no FP16 figure is recorded for the Tesla.

TDP is 107 W versus 247 W. Power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 300 W versus 550 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x4 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a versus a single DVI port.

API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6 for both, Vulkan 1.4 versus no Vulkan support. The RX 6500 XT was released on 2022-01-18, while the Tesla C2075 was released on 2011-07-24. Both are end-of-life products. The RX 6500 XT has a recorded launch MSRP of 199 USD; the Tesla C2075 has no MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT scores 48,289 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 364.3% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla C2075's 10,400.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 have more memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla has a wider 384-bit bus and 6 GB of GDDR5, but its bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s is only slightly above the RX 6500 XT's 143.9 GB/s despite the AMD card using a 64-bit bus.

Q: Can the Tesla C2075 support modern APIs like Vulkan?

A: No. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan support is recorded. The RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has ray tracing capability?

A: The RX 6500 XT includes 16 ray tracing cores. The Tesla C2075 has no ray tracing cores recorded.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 6500 XT has a TDP of 107 W and needs a 300 W power supply with a single 6-pin connector. The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and requires a 550 W power supply with both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector.

Q: How do these cards rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The RX 6500 XT is at the 51st percentile with an average benchmark score of 11,842. The Tesla C2075 is at the 48th percentile with an average score of 10,400.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT outperforms the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 in the only direct benchmark comparison available, and it does so by a staggering 364.3% margin in Geekbench OpenCL. It also offers modern feature support, ray tracing, a vastly smaller and more efficient process node, and a significantly lower power draw of 107 W versus 247 W. For any modern workload, whether gaming, compute, or general GPU acceleration, the RX 6500 XT is the obvious choice.

The Tesla C2075 does retain a few practical advantages: 6 GB of memory versus 4 GB, a wider 384-bit memory bus, and a full PCIe 2.0 x16 interface that may be more compatible with older motherboards. Its 48 ROPs also exceed the RX 6500 XT's 32, which could theoretically help in fill-rate-bound scenarios. But these advantages are not reflected in any recorded benchmark score, and the Tesla's nearest rivals in the database are all low-end mobile and desktop parts like the RX 6500M and RX 550X. It is a product from a different era, and the benchmark results show it.

Users should pick the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT unless they specifically require more than 4 GB of on-board memory or need a legacy PCIe 2.0 x16 card for an older system. For everyone else, the RX 6500 XT delivers more compute performance, better API support, and lower power consumption, all in a package that requires only a 300 W power supply. The Tesla C2075 remains a historical curiosity, but the recorded data makes its limitations clear.