GeForce GTX 960M vs Tesla C2050 / C2070

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce GTX 960M is positioned at rank 35 and the Tesla C2050 / C2070 is on rank 327, so the GeForce GTX 960M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 960M

#25

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

161%

#27

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

146%

#28

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

145%

#32

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

132%

#33

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

131%

#35

GeForce GTX 960M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

100%

#37

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)

MSRP: $50|Avg: $50

98%

#46

Radeon RX 5500M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

88%

#48

GeForce GTX 980 (móvel)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

87%

#49

GeForce 610M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $20

87%

#50

GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $75

86%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Tesla C2050 / C2070

#311

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

10783%

#326

Quadro FX 380

MSRP: $129|Avg: $15

100%

#327

Tesla C2050 / C2070

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $30

100%

#328

FirePro M7740

MSRP: $500|Avg: $500

97%

#329

Quadro FX 570

MSRP: $199|Avg: $15

95%

#330

RTXA5000-24Q

MSRP: $3721|Avg: $2100

94%

#331

GRID P40-1Q

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $150

93%

#333

Tesla M10

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $500

93%

#334

Tesla C2050

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $95

93%

#335

FirePro S10000

MSRP: $3599|Avg: $500

92%

#336

Quadro FX 3450

MSRP: $119|Avg: $30

91%

#337

GRID P40-24Q

MSRP: $5699|Avg: $200

91%

#338

Quadro 4000

MSRP: $1199|Avg: $30

90%

#339

FireStream 9250

MSRP: $999|Avg: $49

85%

#340

GRID P40-3Q

MSRP: $5699|Avg: $5699

84%

#341

GRID M10-2Q

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $150

79%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Tesla C2050 / C2070 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.6% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (6 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 960M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 960M	Tesla C2050 / C2070
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%)	✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+50%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	Standard Size (248mm)

💎 Value Proposition

The Tesla C2050 / C2070 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Tesla C2050 / C2070 holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $50), it costs 40% less, resulting in a 69.3% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 960M	Tesla C2050 / C2070
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+69.3%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50)	✅More affordable ($30)

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce GTX 960M Benchmark Check

Tesla C2050 / C2070 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 960M and Tesla C2050 / C2070

GeForce GTX 960M

The GeForce GTX 960M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1096 MHz to 1176 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,375 points.

Tesla C2050 / C2070

The Tesla C2050 / C2070 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 25 2011. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 574 MHz. It has 448 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 238W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,428 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 960M scores 3,375 and the Tesla C2050 / C2070 reaches 3,428 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 960M is built on Maxwell while the Tesla C2050 / C2070 uses Fermi, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 640 (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 448 (Tesla C2050 / C2070). Raw compute: 1.505 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2050 / C2070).

Feature	GeForce GTX 960M	Tesla C2050 / C2070
G3D Mark Score	3,375	3,428+2%
Architecture	Maxwell	Fermi
Process Node	28 nm	40 nm
Shading Units	640+43%	448
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.505 TFLOPS+46%	1.028 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	48+200%
TMUs	40	56+40%
L1 Cache	320 KB	896 KB+180%
L2 Cache	2 MB+167%	0.75 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 960M	Tesla C2050 / C2070
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 960M comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Tesla C2050 / C2070 has 6 GB. The Tesla C2050 / C2070 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 0.75 MB (Tesla C2050 / C2070) — the GeForce GTX 960M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 960M	Tesla C2050 / C2070
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	6 GB+50%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB+167%	0.75 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 11_0 (Tesla C2050 / C2070). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 1.

Feature	GeForce GTX 960M	Tesla C2050 / C2070
DirectX	12 (11_0)+9%	11_0
Max Displays	4+300%	1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 960M draws 75W versus the Tesla C2050 / C2070's 238W — a 104.2% difference. The GeForce GTX 960M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 350W (Tesla C2050 / C2070). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 248mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.

Feature	GeForce GTX 960M	Tesla C2050 / C2070
TDP	75W-68%	238W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	1x 6-pin	PCIe-powered
Length	0mm	248mm
Height	0mm	—
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	82	—
Perf/Watt	45.0+213%	14.4

💰

Value Analysis

The Tesla C2050 / C2070 costs 40% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 67.5 (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 114.3 (Tesla C2050 / C2070) — the Tesla C2050 / C2070 offers 69.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 960M is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).