Tesla C2075 vs Radeon RX 5500 XT

Place in the ranking	239	497
Place by popularity	97	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	46.55	no data
Power efficiency	12.56	2.44
Architecture	RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Navi 14	GF110
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	12 December 2019 (5 years ago)	25 July 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$169	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1408	448
Core clock speed	1607 MHz	574 MHz
Boost clock speed	1845 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,400 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	247 Watt
Texture fill rate	162.4	32.14
Floating-point processing power	5.196 TFLOPS	1.028 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	48
TMUs	88	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).

Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	180 mm	248 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	14000 MHz	783 MHz
Memory bandwidth	224.0 GB/s	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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DVI
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	-	2.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

RX 5500 XT 22.82
+171%

Tesla C2075 8.42

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

RX 5500 XT 9119
+171%

Tesla C2075 3364

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	77 +185%	27−30 −185%
1440p	42 +200%	14−16 −200%
4K	25 +178%	9−10 −178%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.19	no data
1440p	4.02	no data
4K	6.76	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	66 +175%	24−27 −175%
Cyberpunk 2077	78 +189%	27−30 −189%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +204%	24−27 −204%
Counter-Strike 2	50 +178%	18−20 −178%
Cyberpunk 2077	56 +211%	18−20 −211%
Forza Horizon 4	133 +196%	45−50 −196%
Forza Horizon 5	92 +207%	30−33 −207%
Metro Exodus	99 +183%	35−40 −183%
Red Dead Redemption 2	108 +209%	35−40 −209%
Valorant	139 +178%	50−55 −178%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +204%	24−27 −204%
Counter-Strike 2	41 +193%	14−16 −193%
Cyberpunk 2077	42 +200%	14−16 −200%
Dota 2	112 +180%	40−45 −180%
Far Cry 5	43 +207%	14−16 −207%
Fortnite	120−130 +200%	40−45 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	108 +209%	35−40 −209%
Forza Horizon 5	61 +190%	21−24 −190%
Grand Theft Auto V	94 +213%	30−33 −213%
Metro Exodus	66 +175%	24−27 −175%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +176%	55−60 −176%
Red Dead Redemption 2	39 +179%	14−16 −179%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80 +181%	27−30 −181%
Valorant	84 +180%	30−33 −180%
World of Tanks	250−260 +180%	90−95 −180%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +204%	24−27 −204%
Counter-Strike 2	35 +192%	12−14 −192%
Cyberpunk 2077	36 +200%	12−14 −200%
Dota 2	143 +186%	50−55 −186%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +174%	27−30 −174%
Forza Horizon 4	95 +171%	35−40 −171%
Forza Horizon 5	62 +195%	21−24 −195%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +176%	55−60 −176%
Valorant	114 +185%	40−45 −185%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	44 +175%	16−18 −175%
Grand Theft Auto V	44 +175%	16−18 −175%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +190%	60−65 −190%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24 +200%	8−9 −200%
World of Tanks	150−160 +187%	55−60 −187%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +200%	16−18 −200%
Counter-Strike 2	19 +171%	7−8 −171%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +171%	7−8 −171%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +183%	24−27 −183%
Forza Horizon 4	66 +175%	24−27 −175%
Forza Horizon 5	39 +179%	14−16 −179%
Metro Exodus	60 +186%	21−24 −186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +192%	12−14 −192%
Valorant	91 +203%	30−33 −203%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	13 +225%	4−5 −225%
Dota 2	42 +200%	14−16 −200%
Grand Theft Auto V	42 +200%	14−16 −200%
Metro Exodus	19 +171%	7−8 −171%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +200%	24−27 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 +200%	14−16 −200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +171%	7−8 −171%
Cyberpunk 2077	8 +300%	2−3 −300%
Dota 2	78 +189%	27−30 −189%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +210%	10−11 −210%
Fortnite	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Forza Horizon 4	38 +171%	14−16 −171%
Forza Horizon 5	21 +200%	7−8 −200%
Valorant	25 +178%	9−10 −178%

This is how RX 5500 XT and Tesla C2075 compete in popular games:

RX 5500 XT is 185% faster in 1080p
RX 5500 XT is 200% faster in 1440p
RX 5500 XT is 178% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	22.82	8.42
Recency	12 December 2019	25 July 2011
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	7 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	247 Watt

RX 5500 XT has a 171% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 90% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 5500 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2075 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 5500 XT is a desktop 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.