AMD Radeon RX 6600S vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a stark contrast between two GPUs from different eras and market segments. The AMD Radeon RX 6600S is the clear performance leader, decisively winning the only available head-to-head benchmark with a 538.8% advantage over the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 in Geekbench OpenCL. This is not a close contest. The RX 6600S achieves an average benchmark score of 10,629, placing it in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla C2075 averages 10,400, sitting just one percentile lower at 48. Despite the older card's higher memory capacity and wider bus, the data indicates that the RX 6600S is the superior choice for virtually any workload that leverages modern compute capabilities. However, the Tesla C2075, with its 6 GB of memory and dual-slot professional form factor, might still be relevant for specific legacy compute tasks where capacity outweighs raw speed, though its 247 W power draw and lack of modern API support make it a difficult recommendation for most users. The RX 6600S is the pick for anyone needing modern performance, while the Tesla C2075 is only defensible in niche, memory-capacity-bound scenarios with ample power budget.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The AMD Radeon RX 6600S is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF110 chip, fabricated on a much older 40 nm node, also at TSMC. This process difference is reflected in the transistor counts: the RX 6600S packs 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The Tesla C2075 has only 3,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 520 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 5.8 million per square millimeter. The RX 6600S is a mobile-oriented part (Navi Mobile generation) with an integrated form factor, while the Tesla C2075 is a dual-slot, compute-focused accelerator from the Tesla Fermi generation.

Feature-wise, the RX 6600S supports modern APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It also includes 28 ray tracing cores. The Tesla C2075, by contrast, supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support and no ray tracing cores. The AMD card also has a 128-bit memory bus with GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA card uses a wider 384-bit bus with GDDR5. The RX 6600S is also a PCIe 4.0 x8 device, whereas the Tesla C2075 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The power connector requirements differ significantly: the RX 6600S needs no external power connectors (rated at 80 W TDP), while the Tesla C2075 requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors with a 247 W TDP and a suggested 550 W power supply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is only one direct benchmark comparison in the data: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon RX 6600S scores 66,435, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. The delta is a massive 538.8% in favor of the AMD card. This single result is indicative of the overall performance disparity. Looking at the average benchmark scores, the RX 6600S averages 10,629 across all its tested workloads, which includes results from Passmark DirectX 10 (81), DirectX 11 (105), DirectX 12 (56), DirectX 9 (176), G2D (647), G3D (12,649), and GPU Compute (4,879). The Tesla C2075's average score of 10,400 is based solely on its single Geekbench OpenCL result, as no other benchmark data is available for it.

The RX 6600S shows a broad capability across different API levels, with its strongest showing in Passmark G3D at 12,649 points. In comparison, its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X, averages 10,582 points, which is a 0.4% difference. The RX 6600S also leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (average 10,690, -0.6%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (average 10,761, -1.2%). For the Tesla C2075, its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6500M with an average score of 10,362, placing the Tesla 0.4% ahead. It also compares closely to the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481, -0.8%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273, 1.2%). The data clearly shows that while the Tesla C2075 is competitive with entry-level cards from a much later era, it cannot match the modern compute throughput of the RX 6600S.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal fundamental differences beyond architecture. The RX 6600S has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The Tesla C2075 has only 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The pixel rate of the RX 6600S is 128.0 GPixel/s, compared to 16.07 GPixel/s on the Tesla. Texture rate is similarly lopsided: 224.0 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. The RX 6600S delivers 7.168 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Tesla C2075 manages 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). The RX 6600S also supports FP16 at 14.34 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Tesla C2075 has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory configurations are a point of differentiation. The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s, with memory clocked at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). The RX 6600S has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but achieves a higher bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s due to a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The clock speeds for the RX 6600S are listed as 1700 MHz base, 2000 MHz boost, and 1881 MHz game clock. The Tesla C2075 has no base or boost clock listed. The RX 6600S is an integrated form factor (IGP) with no power connectors and a TDP of 80 W, while the Tesla C2075 is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm (9.8 inches) in length, requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, with a TDP of 247 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The RX 6600S has portable-device-dependent display outputs, whereas the Tesla C2075 has a single DVI output. The RX 6600S was released in January 2022, while the Tesla C2075 was released in July 2011. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600S is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, it scores 66,435 versus 10,400 for the NVIDIA Tesla C2075, a 538.8% difference. Its FP32 compute rating is 7.168 TFLOPS compared to 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Tesla.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 have any advantages over the RX 6600S?

A: Yes, in memory capacity and bus width. The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the RX 6600S has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. However, the RX 6600S still achieves higher memory bandwidth (224.0 GB/s) than the Tesla (150.3 GB/s).

Q: Which card supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The RX 6600S also includes 28 ray tracing cores, which the Tesla lacks.

Q: How does the power consumption compare between the two?

A: The RX 6600S has a TDP of 80 W and requires no external power connectors. The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested power supply of 550 W.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in average benchmark scores?

A: Yes, surprisingly. The RX 6600S has an average benchmark score of 10,629, while the Tesla C2075 averages 10,400. They are within 2.2% of each other on average, despite the massive difference in the single head-to-head OpenCL test. This is because the RX 6600S has several low scores in legacy DirectX tests (e.g., 56 in DirectX 12 and 81 in DirectX 10) that drag its average down.

Q: Which card is positioned better relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 6600S sits in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, with rivals like the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (0.4% lower score) and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (-1.2%) close by. The Tesla C2075 is in the 48th percentile, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (0.4% lower score). Both are mid-pack performers, but the RX 6600S has a higher absolute average score.