Tesla C2050 vs GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 750 Ti with Tesla C2050, including specs and performance data.
GTX 750 Ti outperforms Tesla C2050 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 446 | 510 |
| Place by popularity | 30 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.93 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.66 | 2.39 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 February 2014 (10 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 640 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1020 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1085 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 43.40 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.389 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 40 | 56 |
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 Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 248 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5.4 GB/s | 750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 86.4 GB/s | 144.0 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 Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI | 1x DVI |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API compatibility
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 | 1.1.126 | N/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.
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 HD | 50
+25%
| 40−45
−25%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Elden Ring | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+31.1%
|
45−50
−31.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+30%
|
60−65
−30%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 140−150
+32.7%
|
110−120
−32.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+30%
|
60−65
−30%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| World of Tanks | 70−75
+32.7%
|
55−60
−32.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Elden Ring | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
This is how GTX 750 Ti and Tesla C2050 compete in popular games:
- GTX 750 Ti is 25% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.14 | 8.26 |
| Recency | 18 February 2014 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 238 Watt |
GTX 750 Ti has a 22.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 296.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 750 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2050 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 750 Ti is a desktop card while Tesla C2050 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
