Tesla C2075 vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

Place in the ranking	171	490
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	44.80	no data
Power efficiency	10.63	2.46
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Vega 10	GF110
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	14 August 2017 (7 years ago)	25 July 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$399	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	3584	448
Core clock speed	1138 MHz	574 MHz
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	12,500 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	247 Watt
Texture fill rate	280.0	32.14
Floating-point processing power	8.96 TFLOPS	1.028 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	48
TMUs	224	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 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	248 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	786 MHz	783 MHz
Memory bandwidth	402.4 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	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.125	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.

Pro Vega 56 32.02
+267%

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.

Pro Vega 56 12353
+267%

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	101 +274%	27−30 −274%
4K	53 +279%	14−16 −279%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.95	no data
4K	7.53	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

50−55
+286%

14−16

−286%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +283%	18−20 −283%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +293%	14−16 −293%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +285%	27−30 −285%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +306%	16−18 −306%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +286%	14−16 −286%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +300%	18−20 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85 +286%	21−24 −286%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +280%	45−50 −280%
Hitman 3	65−70 +272%	18−20 −272%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +300%	35−40 −300%
Metro Exodus	100−110 +296%	27−30 −296%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 +276%	21−24 −276%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 +277%	30−33 −277%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +290%	30−33 −290%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +283%	18−20 −283%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +293%	14−16 −293%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +285%	27−30 −285%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +306%	16−18 −306%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +286%	14−16 −286%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +300%	18−20 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85 +286%	21−24 −286%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +280%	45−50 −280%
Hitman 3	65−70 +272%	18−20 −272%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +300%	35−40 −300%
Metro Exodus	100−110 +296%	27−30 −296%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 +276%	21−24 −276%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 +277%	30−33 −277%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	65−70 +272%	18−20 −272%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +290%	30−33 −290%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +283%	18−20 −283%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +293%	14−16 −293%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +306%	16−18 −306%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +286%	14−16 −286%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +300%	18−20 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +280%	45−50 −280%
Hitman 3	65−70 +272%	18−20 −272%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +300%	35−40 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 +277%	30−33 −277%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	64 +300%	16−18 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +290%	30−33 −290%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

75−80
+276%

21−24

−276%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +281%	16−18 −281%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +308%	12−14 −308%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +278%	9−10 −278%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +278%	9−10 −278%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +270%	10−11 −270%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +283%	6−7 −283%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +270%	10−11 −270%
Forza Horizon 4	180−190 +268%	50−55 −268%
Hitman 3	40−45 +300%	10−11 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 +278%	18−20 −278%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +281%	16−18 −281%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +311%	18−20 −311%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +330%	10−11 −330%
Watch Dogs: Legion	160−170 +276%	45−50 −276%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55
+286%

14−16

−286%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +300%	8−9 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +271%	7−8 −271%
Hitman 3	24−27 +271%	7−8 −271%
Horizon Zero Dawn	150−160 +295%	40−45 −295%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +290%	10−11 −290%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 +320%	10−11 −320%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +340%	10−11 −340%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 +320%	10−11 −320%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

+300%

7−8
−300%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and Tesla C2075 compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 56 is 274% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 56 is 279% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	32.02	8.72
Recency	14 August 2017	25 July 2011
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	247 Watt

Pro Vega 56 has a 267.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 17.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2075 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation 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.