Radeon R9 260 vs Tesla C2075
Radeon R9 260
Popular choices:
Tesla C2075
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 260 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla C2075.
| Insight | Radeon R9 260 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R9 260 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R9 260 holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $500), it costs 92% less, resulting in a 1162.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 260 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1162.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($40) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 260 and Tesla C2075
Radeon R9 260
The Radeon R9 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 5 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 947 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,048 points. Launch price was $399.
Tesla C2075
The Tesla C2075 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 25 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 574 MHz. It has 448 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 247W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,017 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 260 scores 3,048 and the Tesla C2075 reaches 3,017 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 260 is built on GCN 2.0 while the Tesla C2075 uses Fermi 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (Radeon R9 260) vs 448 (Tesla C2075). Raw compute: 4.849 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 260) vs 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2075).
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,048+1% | 3,017 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+471% | 448 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.849 TFLOPS+372% | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+33% | 48 |
| TMUs | 160+186% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 640 KB | 896 KB+40% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+33% | 0.75 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon R9 260) vs 0.75 MB (Tesla C2075) — the Radeon R9 260 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+33% | 0.75 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 260 draws 275W versus the Tesla C2075's 247W — a 10.7% difference. The Tesla C2075 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 450W (Radeon R9 260) vs 350W (Tesla C2075). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 275W | 247W-10% |
| Recommended PSU | 450W | 350W-22% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | — | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 11.1 | 12.2+10% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 260 launched at $139 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the Tesla C2075 launched at $0 and now averages $500. The Radeon R9 260 costs 92% less ($460 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 76.2 (Radeon R9 260) vs 6.0 (Tesla C2075) — the Radeon R9 260 offers 1170% better value. The Radeon R9 260 is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2011).
| Feature | Radeon R9 260 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $139 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40-92% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 76.2+1170% | 6.0 |
| Codename | Hawaii | GF110 |
| Release | November 5 2013 | July 25 2011 |
| Ranking | #316 | #553 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 260 and Tesla C2075
