Tesla C2075 vs GeForce GTX 680MX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680MX with Tesla C2075, including specs and performance data.
680MX outperforms C2075 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 532 | 569 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.78 | 2.53 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | no data | GF110 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1536 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3540 Million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 247 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 48 |
| TMUs | no data | 56 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 768 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 248 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 1x DVI |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 55
+22.2%
| 45−50
−22.2%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+22.5%
|
40−45
−22.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+22.5%
|
40−45
−22.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+22.2%
|
45−50
−22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+14.3%
|
35−40
−14.3%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+18.7%
|
75−80
−18.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+22.5%
|
40−45
−22.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+16.7%
|
120−130
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+21.8%
|
55−60
−21.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+22.2%
|
45−50
−22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+14.3%
|
35−40
−14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+18.7%
|
75−80
−18.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+21.8%
|
55−60
−21.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+14.3%
|
35−40
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+18.7%
|
75−80
−18.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+22.2%
|
45−50
−22.2%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+16.7%
|
60−65
−16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+16.3%
|
80−85
−16.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how GTX 680MX and Tesla C2075 compete in popular games:
- GTX 680MX is 22% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.12 | 8.07 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 247 Watt |
GTX 680MX has a 13% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 102% lower power consumption.
Tesla C2075, on the other hand, has a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 680MX is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2075 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680MX is a notebook graphics card while Tesla C2075 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
