GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs Tesla C2075
Aggregate performance score
Tesla C2075 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by a whopping 117% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 461 | 654 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 71 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.37 | 0.29 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GF116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (12 years ago) | 15 March 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | $2237 | $197 (1.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Tesla C2075 has 28% better value for money than GTX 550 Ti.
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 | 448 | 192 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 247 Watt | 116 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 28.8 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 1,030.4 gflops | 691.2 gflops |
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 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 8.25" (21 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | One 6-pin |
| SLI options | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3132 MHz | 4.1 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 98.4 GB/s |
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 | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics 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 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 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.
Tesla C2075 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 117% based on our aggregate 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%
Tesla C2075 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 117% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Tesla C2075 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 105% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
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:
| 900p | 80−85
+111%
| 38
−111%
|
| Full HD | 65−70
+117%
| 30
−117%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.70 | 4.01 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 15 March 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 247 Watt | 116 Watt |
The Tesla C2075 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 550 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla C2075 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a desktop 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.
