GRID K260Q vs Tesla C2075
GRID K260Q
Popular choices:
Tesla C2075
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
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. The GRID K260Q is positioned at rank #247 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID K260Q
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla C2075 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID K260Q.
| Insight | GRID K260Q | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID K260Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID K260Q holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $500), it costs 97% less, resulting in a 3158.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID K260Q | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+3158.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) |
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GRID K260Q and Tesla C2075
GRID K260Q
The GRID K260Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,949 points. Launch price was $937.
Tesla C2075
The Tesla C2075 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 25 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 574 MHz. It has 448 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 247W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,017 points.
Graphics Performance
The GRID K260Q scores 2,949 and the Tesla C2075 reaches 3,017 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID K260Q is built on Kepler while the Tesla C2075 uses Fermi 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID K260Q) vs 448 (Tesla C2075). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K260Q) vs 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2075).
| Feature | GRID K260Q | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,949 | 3,017+2% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536+243% | 448 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.289 TFLOPS+123% | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48+50% |
| TMUs | 128+129% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 896 KB+600% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 768 KB+50% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID K260Q | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (GRID K260Q) vs 768 KB (Tesla C2075) — the Tesla C2075 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID K260Q | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 768 KB+50% |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID K260Q draws 225W versus the Tesla C2075's 247W — a 9.3% difference. The GRID K260Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID K260Q) vs 350W (Tesla C2075). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GRID K260Q | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W-9% | 247W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | — | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 13.1+7% | 12.2 |
Value Analysis
The GRID K260Q launched at $937 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the Tesla C2075 launched at $0 and now averages $500. The GRID K260Q costs 97% less ($485 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 196.6 (GRID K260Q) vs 6.0 (Tesla C2075) — the GRID K260Q offers 3176.7% better value. The GRID K260Q is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2011).
| Feature | GRID K260Q | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $937 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-97% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 196.6+3177% | 6.0 |
| Codename | GK104 | GF110 |
| Release | June 28 2013 | July 25 2011 |
| Ranking | #589 | #553 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID K260Q and Tesla C2075
