Radeon 760M vs Tesla C2075
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla C2075 with Radeon 760M, including specs and performance data.
760M outperforms Tesla C2075 by an impressive 70% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 501 | 362 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.43 | 67.93 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Hawx Point |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 6 December 2023 (1 year 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 | 448 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2599 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 247 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 83.17 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.028 TFLOPS | 5.323 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 32 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 8 |
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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 783 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | no data |
| 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 DVI | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 18−20
−83.3%
| 33
+83.3%
|
| 1440p | 14−16
−71.4%
| 24
+71.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how Tesla C2075 and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 760M is 83% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 760M is 71% faster in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.55 | 14.51 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 6 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 247 Watt | 15 Watt |
Radeon 760M has a 69.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 1546.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2075 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla C2075 is a workstation card while Radeon 760M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
