Tesla C2050 vs GeForce GTX 465
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 465 with Tesla C2050, including specs and performance data.
C2050 outperforms GTX 465 by a significant 20% 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 | 618 | 569 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.07 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.44 | 2.45 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 31 May 2010 (15 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | 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 | 352 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 26.75 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8554 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| Compute performance | 30x | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 44 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 248 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1603 MHz (3206 data rate) | 750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.6 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 | Two Dual Link DVIMini HDMI | 1x DVI |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 | 4.2 | 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 | 6.29 | 7.52 |
| Recency | 31 May 2010 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 3 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 238 Watt |
GTX 465 has 19% lower power consumption.
Tesla C2050, on the other hand, has a 19.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Tesla C2050 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 465 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 465 is a desktop graphics card while Tesla C2050 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.
