Radeon RX 6850M XT vs Tesla C2050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla C2050 with Radeon RX 6850M XT, including specs and performance data.
6850M XT outperforms C2050 by a whopping 450% 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 | 589 | 109 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.48 | 19.71 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (4 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 | 448 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 2321 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2581 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | 165 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 413.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.028 TFLOPS | 13.21 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 56 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 640 KB |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 3 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 96 MB |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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.
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 | 24−27
−82.5%
| 137 |
| 1440p | 14−16 | 85
+507%
|
| 4K | 10−12 | 57
+470%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240 | 230−240 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160 | 160 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 110−120 | 110−120 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240 | 230−240 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 136 | 136 |
| Far Cry 5 | 109 | 109 |
| Fortnite | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Valorant | 240−250 | 240−250 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240 | 230−240 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 106 | 106 |
| Dota 2 | 113 | 113 |
| Far Cry 5 | 105 | 105 |
| Far Cry 6 | 104 | 104 |
| Fortnite | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 126 | 126 |
| Metro Exodus | 116 | 116 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 198 | 198 |
| Valorant | 240−250 | 240−250 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 87 | 87 |
| Dota 2 | 95 | 95 |
| Far Cry 5 | 102 | 102 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 122 | 122 |
| Valorant | 240−250 | 240−250 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 180−190 | 180−190 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 290−300 | 290−300 |
| Far Cry 6 | 87 | 87 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 89 | 89 |
| Metro Exodus | 68 | 68 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 280−290 | 280−290 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55 | 55 |
| Far Cry 5 | 99 | 99 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85 | 80−85 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 110−120 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Far Cry 6 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99 | 99 |
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72 | 72 |
| Valorant | 250−260 | 250−260 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26 | 26 |
| Dota 2 | 78 | 78 |
| Far Cry 5 | 68 | 68 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85 | 80−85 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65 | 60−65 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 55−60 |
This is how Tesla C2050 and RX 6850M XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6850M XT is 471% faster in 1080p
- RX 6850M XT is 507% faster in 1440p
- RX 6850M XT is 470% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.59 | 41.76 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 4 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | 165 Watt |
RX 6850M XT has a 450% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 83% more advanced lithography process, and 31% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 6850M XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2050 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla C2050 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6850M XT is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
