
Radeon Pro 555
Popular choices:

Tesla C2050
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
Radeon Pro 555
2017Why buy it
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 238W, a 163W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 1.3 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
Tesla C2050
2011Why buy it
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 1.3 vs 0 G3D/$ ($2,499 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2011-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌217.3% higher power demand at 238W vs 75W.
Radeon Pro 555
2017Tesla C2050
2011Why buy it
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 238W, a 163W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Why buy it
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 1.3 vs 0 G3D/$ ($2,499 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 1.3 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2011-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌217.3% higher power demand at 238W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
So, is Tesla C2050 better than Radeon Pro 555?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does Radeon Pro 555 make more sense than Tesla C2050?
Games Benchmarks
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 9800X3D 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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Radeon Pro 555 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 47 FPS | 82 FPS |
| medium | 29 FPS | 68 FPS |
| high | 20 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 10 FPS | 30 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 31 FPS | 64 FPS |
| medium | 19 FPS | 53 FPS |
| high | 10 FPS | 34 FPS |
| ultra | 5 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 10 FPS | 24 FPS |
| medium | 7 FPS | 22 FPS |
| high | 4 FPS | 14 FPS |
| ultra | 3 FPS | 12 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Radeon Pro 555 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 67 FPS | 120 FPS |
| medium | 38 FPS | 92 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 73 FPS |
| ultra | 17 FPS | 56 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 30 FPS | 79 FPS |
| medium | 18 FPS | 55 FPS |
| high | 12 FPS | 40 FPS |
| ultra | 9 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 8 FPS | 36 FPS |
| medium | 6 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 5 FPS | 23 FPS |
| ultra | 3 FPS | 18 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Radeon Pro 555 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 141 FPS | 143 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 114 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 95 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 71 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 106 FPS | 107 FPS |
| medium | 85 FPS | 86 FPS |
| high | 71 FPS | 71 FPS |
| ultra | 53 FPS | 54 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 71 FPS | 71 FPS |
| medium | 57 FPS | 57 FPS |
| high | 47 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 36 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Radeon Pro 555 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 141 FPS | 143 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 114 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 95 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 71 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 106 FPS | 107 FPS |
| medium | 85 FPS | 86 FPS |
| high | 71 FPS | 71 FPS |
| ultra | 53 FPS | 54 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 71 FPS | 69 FPS |
| medium | 55 FPS | 54 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 43 FPS |
| ultra | 30 FPS | 30 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon Pro 555 and Tesla C2050

Radeon Pro 555
Radeon Pro 555
The Radeon Pro 555 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 5 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 850 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,141 points.

Tesla C2050
Tesla C2050
The Tesla C2050 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 25 2011. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 574 MHz. It has 448 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 238W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,176 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon Pro 555 scores 3,141 and the Tesla C2050 reaches 3,176 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon Pro 555 is built on GCN 4.0 while the Tesla C2050 uses Fermi, both on 14 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 768 (Radeon Pro 555) vs 448 (Tesla C2050). Raw compute: 1.306 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 555) vs 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2050).
| Feature | Radeon Pro 555 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,141 | 3,176+1% |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Fermi |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 768+71% | 448 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.306 TFLOPS+27% | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48+200% |
| TMUs | 48 | 56+17% |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 896 KB+367% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+33% | 0.75 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro 555 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 | Upscaling support |
| 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: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon Pro 555) vs 0.75 MB (Tesla C2050) — the Radeon Pro 555 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 555 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+33% | 0.75 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro 555 draws 75W versus the Tesla C2050's 238W — a 104.2% difference. The Radeon Pro 555 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon Pro 555) vs 350W (Tesla C2050). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 555 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-68% | 238W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Perf/Watt | 41.9+215% | 13.3 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon Pro 555 launched at $0 MSRP, while the Tesla C2050 launched at $2499. The Radeon Pro 555 costs 100+% less ($2499 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): Infinity (Radeon Pro 555) vs 1.3 (Tesla C2050) — the Radeon Pro 555 offers Infinity% better value. The Radeon Pro 555 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2011).
| Feature | Radeon Pro 555 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $2499 |
| Performance per Dollar | Infinity | 1.3 |
| Codename | Polaris 21 | GF100 |
| Release | June 5 2017 | July 25 2011 |
| Ranking | #574 | #569 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












