Tesla C2075 vs Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire

Place in the ranking	295	489
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	6.83	2.59
Architecture	GCN (2012−2015)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Neptune CF	GF110
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	1 May 2012 (12 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 cores	2560	448
Core clock speed	850 MHz	574 MHz
Boost clock speed	900 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	247 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	32.14
Floating-point processing power	no data	1.028 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	48
TMUs	no data	56

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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	no data	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	248 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	no data	6 GB
Memory bus width	2x 256 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	4800 MHz	783 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	150.3 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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 Connectors

no data

1x DVI

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/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.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

70
+133%

30−35

−133%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−33
+114%

14−16

−114%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +139%	18−20 −139%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Battlefield 5	60−65 +133%	27−30 −133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +117%	18−20 −117%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +114%	14−16 −114%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55 +143%	21−24 −143%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +116%	55−60 −116%
Hitman 3	35−40 +131%	16−18 −131%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +133%	40−45 −133%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +120%	30−33 −120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +143%	21−24 −143%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +133%	27−30 −133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +123%	40−45 −123%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +139%	18−20 −139%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Battlefield 5	60−65 +133%	27−30 −133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +117%	18−20 −117%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +114%	14−16 −114%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55 +143%	21−24 −143%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +116%	55−60 −116%
Hitman 3	35−40 +131%	16−18 −131%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +133%	40−45 −133%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +120%	30−33 −120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +143%	21−24 −143%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +133%	27−30 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +139%	18−20 −139%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +123%	40−45 −123%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +139%	18−20 −139%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +117%	18−20 −117%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +114%	14−16 −114%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +116%	55−60 −116%
Hitman 3	35−40 +131%	16−18 −131%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +133%	40−45 −133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +133%	27−30 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +139%	18−20 −139%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +123%	40−45 −123%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55
+143%

21−24

−143%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +131%	16−18 −131%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +142%	12−14 −142%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +120%	10−11 −120%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +133%	45−50 −133%
Hitman 3	21−24 +120%	10−11 −120%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +117%	18−20 −117%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +119%	16−18 −119%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +138%	16−18 −138%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +120%	10−11 −120%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +128%	50−55 −128%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35
+129%

14−16

−129%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Hitman 3	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100 +118%	45−50 −118%
Metro Exodus	20−22 +122%	9−10 −122%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +117%	12−14 −117%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+143%

7−8
−143%

This is how HD 8970M Crossfire and Tesla C2075 compete in popular games:

HD 8970M Crossfire is 133% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.61	8.72
Recency	1 May 2012	25 July 2011
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	247 Watt

HD 8970M Crossfire has a 113.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 23.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2075 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire is a notebook card while Tesla C2075 is a workstation one.

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