Tesla C2075 vs FirePro D300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro D300 and Tesla C2075, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FirePro D300
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.20
+17%

D300 outperforms Tesla C2075 by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking443490
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.742.46
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code namePitcairnGF110
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date18 January 2014 (10 years ago)25 July 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1280448
Core clock speed850 MHz574 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt247 Watt
Texture fill rate68.0032.14
Floating-point processing power2.176 TFLOPS1.028 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs8056

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length242 mm248 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz783 MHz
Memory bandwidth162.6 GB/s150.3 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPort1x DVI

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-2.0

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.20 8.72
Recency 18 January 2014 25 July 2011
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 247 Watt

FirePro D300 has a 17% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 64.7% lower power consumption.

Tesla C2075, on the other hand, has a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The FirePro D300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2075 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro D300
FirePro D300
NVIDIA Tesla C2075
Tesla C2075

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 29 votes

Rate FirePro D300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 29 votes

Rate Tesla C2075 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.