Tesla C2070 vs GeForce GTS 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 250 with Tesla C2070, including specs and performance data.
C2070 outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 453% 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 | 1053 | 581 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.07 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.69 | 2.41 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | G92B | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 128 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 738 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 44.93 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3871 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 64 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 248 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1100 MHz | 747 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 70.4 GB/s | 143.4 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 | Two Dual Link DVI | 1x DVI |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| 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 | 1.35 | 7.46 |
| Recency | 4 March 2009 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 238 Watt |
GTS 250 has 59% lower power consumption.
Tesla C2070, on the other hand, has a 453% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 38% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla C2070 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop graphics card while Tesla C2070 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.
