FirePro W4100 vs Tesla C2075
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla C2075 and FirePro W4100, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Tesla C2075 outperforms W4100 by a whopping 121% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 494 | 700 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.44 | 5.46 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 13 August 2014 (10 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 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 630 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 247 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 20.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.028 TFLOPS | 0.6451 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 32 |
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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 171 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | low profile / half length |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 783 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 72 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 | 1x DVI | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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 | 35−40
+106%
| 17
−106%
|
| 4K | 6−7
+100%
| 3
−100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how Tesla C2075 and FirePro W4100 compete in popular games:
- Tesla C2075 is 106% faster in 1080p
- Tesla C2075 is 100% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.75 | 3.96 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 13 August 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 247 Watt | 50 Watt |
Tesla C2075 has a 121% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
FirePro W4100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 394% lower power consumption.
The Tesla C2075 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W4100 in performance tests.
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.
