GRID K260Q vs Tesla C2075

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.

GRID K260Q vs Tesla C2075 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GRID K260Q vs Tesla C2075: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GRID K260Q

2013

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 3.1 vs 0 G3D/$ ($937 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅More future proof: Kepler (2012−2018) on 28nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌2013 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Tesla C2075

2011

Why buy it

✅GRID K260Q is already obsolete for modern gaming, so Tesla C2075 is the less risky modern option long term.

Trade-offs

❌2011 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 3.1 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $937 MSRP).

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Tesla C2075 is the faster gaming card right now based on the synthetic data we have. It leads by 2.3% in PassMark G3D (3,017 vs 2,949), which is the best performance signal available in this matchup.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

Tesla C2075 is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond because it comes out ahead on the available hardware-headroom signals for this matchup.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

GRID K260Q makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, GRID K260Q is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, Tesla C2075 has the stronger long-term case.

GRID K260Q vs Tesla C2075 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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	Upscaling support	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards ship with 2 GB of GDDR5. Memory bus width is 64-bit on the GRID K260Q and 64-bit on the Tesla C2075. 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

At launch, the GRID K260Q came in at $937, while the Tesla C2075 launched at $0. On MSRP, Tesla C2075 was 100+% cheaper ($937 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 3.1 (GRID K260Q) vs Infinity (Tesla C2075) — the Tesla C2075 offers Infinity% better value. The newer card here is GRID K260Q (2013 vs 2011).

Feature	GRID K260Q	Tesla C2075
MSRP	$937	$0-100%
Performance per Dollar	3.1	Infinity
Codename	GK104	GF110
Release	June 28 2013	July 25 2011
Ranking	#589	#553

Search GRID K260Q on Amazon

Search Tesla C2075 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.