Tesla C2075 vs GeForce GTX 590

Place in performance ranking	461	457
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	0.47	0.36
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GF110	GF110
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	24 March 2011 (13 years ago)	25 July 2011 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$699	no data
Current price	$600 (0.9x MSRP)	$2237

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 590 has 31% better value for money than Tesla C2075.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1024	448
CUDA cores	1024	no data
Core clock speed	607 MHz	574 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	365 Watt	247 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	97 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	77.7 billion/sec	32.14
Floating-point performance	2x 1,244.2 gflops	1,030.4 gflops

Size and 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	16x PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	11" (280 mm) (27.9 cm)	248 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	Two 8-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options	+	no data

Memory

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	3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU)	6 GB
Memory bus width	768-bit (384-bit per GPU)	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1707 MHz	3132 MHz
Memory bandwidth	327.7 GB/s	150.3 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

Video outputs and ports

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 Connectors	Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort	1x DVI
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	no data
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

API support

List of supported graphics 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 benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 590 8.63

Tesla C2075 8.69
+0.7%

Tesla C2075 outperforms GeForce GTX 590 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 590 3341

Tesla C2075 3364
+0.7%

Tesla C2075 outperforms GeForce GTX 590 by 1% in Passmark.

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:

900p	47 +4.4%	45−50 −4.4%
Full HD	109 +9%	100−110 −9%
1200p	112 +1.8%	110−120 −1.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14
+8.3%

12−14

−8.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +7.4%	27−30 −7.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +7.4%	27−30 −7.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +7.4%	27−30 −7.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Hitman 3	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

This is how GTX 590 and Tesla C2075 compete in popular games:

GTX 590 is 4.4% faster than Tesla C2075 in 900p
GTX 590 is 9% faster than Tesla C2075 in 1080p
GTX 590 is 1.8% faster than Tesla C2075 in 1200p

Advantages and disadvantages

Performance score	8.63	8.69
Recency	24 March 2011	25 July 2011
Maximum RAM amount	3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU)	6 GB
Power consumption (TDP)	365 Watt	247 Watt