ATI Radeon 9800 XT vs Tesla C2075

Place in the ranking	492	1424
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.43	0.17
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Rage 9 (2003−2006)
GPU code name	GF110	R360
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	25 July 2011 (13 years ago)	1 October 2003 (21 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	no data
Core clock speed	574 MHz	412 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	117 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	247 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	32.14	3.296
Floating-point processing power	1.028 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	48	8
TMUs	56	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	AGP 8x
Length	248 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	1x Molex

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	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	783 MHz	365 MHz
Memory bandwidth	150.3 GB/s	23.36 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 Connectors

1x DVI

1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	9.0
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	2.0
OpenCL	1.1	N/A
Vulkan	N/A	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.

Tesla C2075 8.73
+5720%

ATI 9800 XT 0.15

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.

Tesla C2075 3364
+5907%

ATI 9800 XT 56

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	8.73	0.15
Recency	25 July 2011	1 October 2003
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	247 Watt	60 Watt

Tesla C2075 has a 5720% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 275% more advanced lithography process.

ATI 9800 XT, on the other hand, has 311.7% lower power consumption.

The Tesla C2075 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9800 XT in performance tests.

Be aware that Tesla C2075 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 9800 XT is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.