Tesla C2075 vs Radeon R9 280

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with Tesla C2075, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
14.43
+65.3%

R9 280 outperforms Tesla C2075 by an impressive 65% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking365493
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.41no data
Power efficiency4.942.42
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameTahitiGF110
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)25 July 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 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 cores1792448
Core clock speedno data574 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,313 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt247 Watt
Texture fill rate104.532.14
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS1.028 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs11256

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length275 mm248 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount3 GB6 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz783 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort1x DVI
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+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.

R9 280 14.43
+65.3%
Tesla C2075 8.73

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.

R9 280 5558
+65.2%
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 14.43 8.73
Recency 4 March 2014 25 July 2011
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 247 Watt

R9 280 has a 65.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 23.5% lower power consumption.

Tesla C2075, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2075 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 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.

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 Radeon R9 280
Radeon R9 280
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.


3.6 399 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 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.