Tesla C2075 vs Radeon R9 260
Tesla C2075
Popular choices:
Radeon R9 260
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 | Tesla C2075 | Radeon R9 260 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) |
| 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 | Tesla C2075 | Radeon R9 260 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1162.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) | ✅More affordable ($40) |
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 Tesla C2075 and Radeon R9 260
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Tesla C2075 scores 3,017 and the Radeon R9 260 reaches 3,048 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla C2075 is built on Fermi 2.0 while the Radeon R9 260 uses GCN 2.0, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 448 (Tesla C2075) vs 2,560 (Radeon R9 260). Raw compute: 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2075) vs 4.849 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 260).
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | Radeon R9 260 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,017 | 3,048+1% |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 448 | 2560+471% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.028 TFLOPS | 4.849 TFLOPS+372% |
| ROPs | 48 | 64+33% |
| TMUs | 56 | 160+186% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+40% | 640 KB |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 1 MB+33% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | Radeon R9 260 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.75 MB (Tesla C2075) vs 1 MB (Radeon R9 260) — the Radeon R9 260 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | Radeon R9 260 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 1 MB+33% |
Power & Dimensions
The Tesla C2075 draws 247W versus the Radeon R9 260's 275W — a 10.7% difference. The Tesla C2075 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla C2075) vs 450W (Radeon R9 260). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | Radeon R9 260 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 247W-10% | 275W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-22% | 450W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 12.2+10% | 11.1 |
Value Analysis
The Tesla C2075 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the Radeon R9 260 launched at $139 and now averages $40. The Radeon R9 260 costs 92% less ($460 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 6.0 (Tesla C2075) vs 76.2 (Radeon R9 260) — the Radeon R9 260 offers 1170% better value. The Radeon R9 260 is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2011).
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | Radeon R9 260 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $139 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $40-92% |
| Performance per Dollar | 6.0 | 76.2+1170% |
| Codename | GF110 | Hawaii |
| Release | July 25 2011 | November 5 2013 |
| Ranking | #553 | #316 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Tesla C2075 and Radeon R9 260
