GeForce 7950 GT vs Tesla C2050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla C2050 with GeForce 7950 GT, including specs and performance data.
C2050 outperforms 7950 GT by a whopping 818% 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 | 583 | 1211 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 2.48 | 0.99 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | G71 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) | 6 August 2006 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $114.95 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 448 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 13.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.028 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | 44.8 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.62 | 0.83 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 6 August 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | 65 Watt |
Tesla C2050 has a 818% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.
7950 GT, on the other hand, has 266% lower power consumption.
The Tesla C2050 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7950 GT in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla C2050 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce 7950 GT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
