Tesla C2075 vs Quadro RTX 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 and Tesla C2075, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RTX 4000
2018
8 GB GDDR6, 160 Watt
39.82
+357%

RTX 4000 outperforms Tesla C2075 by a whopping 357% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking103486
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation36.59no data
Power efficiency17.962.55
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameTU104GF110
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date13 November 2018 (5 years ago)25 July 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$899 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 cores2304448
Core clock speed1005 MHz574 MHz
Boost clock speed1545 MHzno data
Number of transistors13,600 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)160 Watt247 Watt
Texture fill rate222.532.14
Floating-point processing power7.119 TFLOPS1.028 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs14456
Tensor Cores288no data
Ray Tracing Cores36no data

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
Length241 mm248 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz783 MHz
Memory bandwidth416.0 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 Connectors3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C1x DVI

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.55.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA7.52.0

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.

RTX 4000 39.82
+357%
Tesla C2075 8.72

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.

RTX 4000 15367
+357%
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.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 39.82 8.72
Recency 13 November 2018 25 July 2011
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 160 Watt 247 Watt

RTX 4000 has a 356.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 54.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 4000 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.


NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
Quadro RTX 4000
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.


3.5 475 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 4000 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.