Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs Tesla C2050

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tesla C2050 with Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, including specs and performance data.

Tesla C2050
2011
3 GB GDDR5, 238 Watt
8.07

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms Tesla C2050 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking517484
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.3822.57
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameGF100Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date25 July 2011 (13 years ago)15 August 2020 (4 years ago)

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 cores44896
Core clock speed574 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)238 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate32.14no data
Floating-point processing power1.028 TFLOPSno data
ROPs48no data
TMUs56no data

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount3 GBno data
Memory bus width384 Bitno data
Memory clock speed750 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth144.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVIno data

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA2.0-

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 HD24−27
−12.5%
27
+12.5%
1440p14−16
−14.3%
16
+14.3%
4K10−12
−20%
12
+20%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 26
+0%
26
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 15
+0%
15
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 18
+0%
18
+0%
Battlefield 5 41
+0%
41
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+0%
16
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Fortnite 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 124
+0%
124
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12
+0%
12
+0%
Battlefield 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 96
+0%
96
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 51
+0%
51
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Fortnite 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
Metro Exodus 15
+0%
15
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+0%
30
+0%
Valorant 112
+0%
112
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Dota 2 47
+0%
47
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 23
+0%
23
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 15
+0%
15
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+0%
7
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
+0%
8
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+0%
12
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how Tesla C2050 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 13% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 14% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 20% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.07 9.00
Recency 25 July 2011 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 238 Watt 28 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 11.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 750% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2050 in performance tests.

Be aware that Tesla C2050 is a workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook one.

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 Tesla C2050
Tesla C2050
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Other comparisons

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.


4.3 17 votes

Rate Tesla C2050 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1005 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Tesla C2050 or Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.