Quadro FX 1000 vs Tesla C2050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla C2050 and Quadro FX 1000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Tesla C2050 outperforms FX 1000 by a whopping 8875% 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 | 561 | 1518 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.43 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Rankine (2003−2005) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | NV30 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) | 21 January 2003 (22 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 cores | 448 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 125 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 2.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.028 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 48 | 4 |
| TMUs | 56 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | no 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | AGP 8x |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x Molex |
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 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | 9.6 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 | 1x DVI | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 9.0a |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 1.5 (2.1) |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| 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 | 7.18 | 0.08 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 21 January 2003 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 130 nm |
Tesla C2050 has a 8875% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 225% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla C2050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
