Tesla C2050 vs Tesla K40c
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K40c and Tesla C2050, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
K40c outperforms C2050 by a considerable 42% 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 | 488 | 593 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.41 | 2.48 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK180 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (13 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $7,699 | no data |
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 | 2880 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 745 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 876 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 245 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 210.2 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.046 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 48 |
| TMUs | 240 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 248 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 144.0 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 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 | 10.72 | 7.57 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 245 Watt | 238 Watt |
Tesla K40c has a 42% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 30% more advanced lithography process.
Tesla C2050, on the other hand, has 3% lower power consumption.
The Tesla K40c is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2050 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
