Tesla C2050 vs Radeon Pro 560
Aggregated performance score
Radeon Pro 560 outperforms Tesla C2050 by 10% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 447 | 471 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 13.73 | 3.21 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 June 2017 (6 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Current price | $127 | $70 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Pro 560 has 328% better value for money than Tesla C2050.
Detailed Specifications
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 |
| Core clock speed | 907 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.05 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,858 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Radeon Pro 560 and Tesla C2050 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 248 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5080 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 144.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | No outputs | 1x DVI |
Supported Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | no data |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | 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.
Radeon Pro 560 outperforms Tesla C2050 by 10% 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%
Radeon Pro 560 outperforms Tesla C2050 by 9% in Passmark.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 8.98 | 8.20 |
| Recency | 5 June 2017 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 238 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro 560 and Tesla C2050.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 560 is a mobile workstation 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.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
