AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and AMD Radeon RX 6500M occupy nearly the same position in the overall GPU hierarchy, with the Tesla averaging 10,400 points and the Radeon averaging 10,362 points in their respective benchmark suites. Both cards sit at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, making them statistical equals in aggregate performance. However, this surface-level parity masks a fundamental divergence: the Tesla C2075 is a 2011-era compute accelerator built on Fermi 2.0, while the RX 6500M is a 2022 mobile gaming chip built on RDNA 2.0. The data shows that in the one benchmark where both were tested head-to-head — Geekbench OpenCL — the AMD card is decisively faster, scoring 38,586 against the Tesla's 10,400, a 73% margin. This makes the RX 6500M the clear choice for OpenCL compute workloads, but the Tesla's legacy status and unique architectural traits still give it relevance in specific contexts.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M wins the only direct comparison available in the data, and it wins by a landslide. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6500M scores 38,586 points, which is 271% higher than the Tesla C2075's 10,400 points. This single result defines the modern card's advantage: it is built on a 6 nm process with RDNA 2.0 architecture, features 1,024 shading units, and can reach a boost clock of 2,400 MHz. The Tesla C2075, by contrast, uses a 40 nm process, has 448 shading units, and has no boost clock listed. The RX 6500M also brings features the Tesla lacks entirely, including 16 ray tracing cores and Vulkan 1.4 API support. For any workload that leverages OpenCL, ray tracing, or modern API features, the RX 6500M is the only viable option between the two.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 does not win any benchmarks in the provided data, but it retains structural advantages that matter in legacy contexts. It offers 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the RX 6500M's 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus at 144.0 GB/s. The Tesla also has 48 ROPs versus the Radeon's 32, and its 248 mm dual-slot design with a 6-pin plus 8-pin power connector suggests it was built for workstation environments where expansion and power delivery are less constrained. The Tesla's average benchmark score of 10,400 is actually 0.4% higher than the Radeon's 10,362, and it edges out the RX 6500M in the nearestRivals comparison, where the AMD card shows a -0.4% delta against the Tesla. This marginal average-score advantage indicates that in aggregate, across all benchmark types, the Tesla is not categorically slower — it simply loses the specific OpenCL test by a huge margin.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has an average benchmark score of 10,400, which is 0.4% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6500M's average of 10,362. Both cards sit at the 48th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 38,586 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. This gives the AMD card a 73% lead over the NVIDIA card in that specific test.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RX 6500M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M includes 16 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075, based on Fermi 2.0, has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has a pixel rate of 76.80 GPixel/s, which is substantially higher than the NVIDIA Tesla C2075's 16.07 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The Tesla C2075 is built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 6500M uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The Radeon's newer node allows for 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, compared to 3,000 million on 520 mm² for the Tesla.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces the most lopsided result in the comparison. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 38,586, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. The delta percentage is -73%, meaning the Tesla achieves only 27% of the Radeon's score. This is not a close contest; it is a generational gap. The RX 6500M's 4.915 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is nearly five times the Tesla's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The texture rate tells a similar story: 153.6 GTexel/s for the AMD card versus 32.14 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card. Even the pixel rate, where the Tesla's 48 ROPs might help, shows the Radeon ahead at 76.80 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s.

The average benchmark scores, however, paint a different picture. The Tesla's average of 10,400 is 0.4% higher than the RX 6500M's 10,362. This means that outside of Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500M's other benchmark results — which include Passmark DirectX 10, 11, 12, and 9 scores, plus Passmark G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute — pull its average down significantly. The RX 6500M's Passmark G3D score is 7,531, but its Passmark DirectX 12 score is just 34, and its DirectX 10 score is 52. These low DirectX scores suggest that the Radeon's raw compute power does not translate evenly across all API workloads, while the Tesla's single benchmark result keeps its average stable. In the nearestRivals data, the Tesla C2075 is listed as 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A, while the RX 6500M is 0.9% ahead of that same GPU. The Tesla also edges out the AMD Radeon RX 550X by 0.8%, whereas the RX 6500M trails that card by 1.1%.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Tesla C2075 uses 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the RX 6500M uses 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla has no ray tracing cores; the RX 6500M has 16. The Tesla's memory clock is 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective), while the RX 6500M's memory clock is 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The Tesla offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the RX 6500M offers 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. Bandwidth is close — 150.3 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s — but the bus width difference is stark.

Power and physical design also diverge completely. The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W, requires a 550 W PSU, uses a dual-slot form factor, and needs a 6-pin plus 8-pin power connector. The RX 6500M has a TDP of 50 W, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, and has no listed PSU requirement. The Tesla measures 248 mm in length (9.8 inches) and outputs video via a single DVI port. The RX 6500M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile nature. The Tesla uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the RX 6500M uses PCIe 4.0 x4. In terms of API support, the Tesla lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan; the RX 6500M lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, using the GF110 chip, and is part of the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation. It is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.8 million per mm². The RX 6500M uses AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 24 chip, part of the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation. It is built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, for a density of 50.5 million per mm². The density difference is nearly ninefold, reflecting over a decade of process improvement.

The compute capabilities reflect this architectural shift. The Tesla's FP32 throughput is 1,027.7 GFLOPS, with no FP16 performance listed. The RX 6500M delivers 4.915 TFLOPS of FP32 and 9.830 TFLOPS of FP16 (at 2:1 ratio). The Radeon's clock speeds are also fully specified: 2,000 MHz base, 2,400 MHz boost, and 2,191 MHz game clock. The Tesla lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock. The RX 6500M's 16 ray tracing cores are a defining feature of RDNA 2.0, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the Fermi-based Tesla cannot perform. The Tesla's production status is end-of-life, as is the RX 6500M's, but the Tesla's release date of July 2011 and successor (Tesla Kepler) place it in a completely different era than the RX 6500M, which launched in January 2022 and has no successor listed. The Tesla's predecessor is listed simply as "Tesla," while the RX 6500M's predecessor is "Polaris Mobile," further illustrating the divergent product lineages.