Tesla C2075 vs GeForce GTX 1050

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 with Tesla C2075, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1050
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
13.06
+49.6%

GTX 1050 outperforms Tesla C2075 by an impressive 50% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking389493
Place by popularity15not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.35no data
Power efficiency11.952.43
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGP107GF110
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date25 October 2016 (8 years ago)25 July 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores640448
Core clock speed1290 MHz574 MHz
Boost clock speed1392 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,300 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt247 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature97 °Cno data
Texture fill rate58.2032.14
Floating-point processing power1.862 TFLOPS1.028 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs4056

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length145 mm248 mm
Height4.38" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)300 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI-no data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1752 MHz783 MHz
Memory bandwidth112 GB/s150.3 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsDP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI1x DVI
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
HDCP2.2-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream+-
GPU Boost3.0no data
VR Ready+no data
Ansel+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA+2.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1050 13.06
+49.6%
Tesla C2075 8.73

  • Passmark

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.

GTX 1050 5033
+49.6%
Tesla C2075 3364

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 HD43
+59.3%
27−30
−59.3%
1440p20
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
4K21
+50%
14−16
−50%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.53no data
1440p5.45no data
4K5.19no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 38
+58.3%
24−27
−58.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+50%
14−16
−50%
Battlefield 5 43
+59.3%
27−30
−59.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+56.4%
55−60
−56.4%
Hitman 3 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+51.1%
45−50
−51.1%
Metro Exodus 46
+53.3%
30−33
−53.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 52
+73.3%
30−33
−73.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+62.2%
45−50
−62.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 49
+63.3%
30−33
−63.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+50%
14−16
−50%
Battlefield 5 35
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 33
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 16
+60%
10−11
−60%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+56.4%
55−60
−56.4%
Hitman 3 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+51.1%
45−50
−51.1%
Metro Exodus 37
+54.2%
24−27
−54.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+62.2%
45−50
−62.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 15
+50%
10−11
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+50%
14−16
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 23
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Forza Horizon 4 34
+61.9%
21−24
−61.9%
Hitman 3 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 26
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 31
+72.2%
18−20
−72.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+62.2%
45−50
−62.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+62.5%
40−45
−62.5%
Hitman 3 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+50%
18−20
−50%
Metro Exodus 25
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18
+50%
12−14
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+62%
50−55
−62%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+50%
14−16
−50%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Hitman 3 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+57.5%
40−45
−57.5%
Metro Exodus 12
+50%
8−9
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+50%
10−11
−50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%

This is how GTX 1050 and Tesla C2075 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1050 is 59% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1050 is 67% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1050 is 50% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.06 8.73
Recency 25 October 2016 25 July 2011
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 247 Watt

GTX 1050 has a 49.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 229.3% lower power consumption.

Tesla C2075, on the other hand, has a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The GeForce GTX 1050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2075 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 is a desktop card while Tesla C2075 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050
GeForce GTX 1050
NVIDIA Tesla C2075
Tesla C2075

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 5812 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1050 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 29 votes

Rate Tesla C2075 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.