AMD Radeon R9 M470 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 M470 and NVIDIA Tesla C2075 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M470
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- Around 57% higher core clock speed: 900 MHz vs 575 MHz
- Around 49% higher texture fill rate: 48 GTexel / s vs 32.2 GTexel / s
- Around 71% higher pipelines: 768 vs 448
- Around 49% better floating-point performance: 1,536 gflops vs 1,030.4 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 2x more memory clock speed: 6000 MHz vs 3000 MHz
- 4.5x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 47924 vs 10563
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 15 May 2016 vs 25 July 2011 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz vs 575 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 48 GTexel / s vs 32.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 768 vs 448 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,536 gflops vs 1,030.4 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz vs 3000 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 47924 vs 10563 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Tesla C2075
- Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 6 GB vs 4 GB
- Around 29% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3017 vs 2331
- Around 39% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 428 vs 307
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3705 vs 1804
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3705 vs 1804
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 vs 1674
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 vs 1674
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Maximum memory size | 6 GB vs 4 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3017 vs 2331 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 428 vs 307 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3705 vs 1804 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3705 vs 1804 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 vs 1674 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 vs 1674 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M470
GPU 2: NVIDIA Tesla C2075
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R9 M470 | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2331 | 3017 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 307 | 428 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 47924 | 10563 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1804 | 3705 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1804 | 3705 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1674 | 3346 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1674 | 3346 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.973 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 930.623 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.142 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.924 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 93.747 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2825 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2825 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R9 M470 | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
| Code name | Strato | GF110 |
| Launch date | 15 May 2016 | 25 July 2011 |
| Place in performance rating | 765 | 767 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,536 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 448 |
| Texture fill rate | 48 GTexel / s | 32.2 GTexel / s |
| Transistor count | 2,080 million | 3,000 million |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 247 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | large | |
| Length | 248 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB / s | 144.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| DirectCompute 5.0 | ||
