GRID M10-4Q 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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The GRID M10-4Q is positioned at rank #344 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

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

Performance Per Dollar GRID M10-4Q

#117

L40

MSRP: $31000|Avg: $8174

99%

#329

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

13937%

#344

GRID M10-4Q

MSRP: $2805|Avg: $340

100%

#346

GRID M10-8Q

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $500

98%

#347

FirePro V8700

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $170

97%

#348

Quadro FX 3800

MSRP: $799|Avg: $20

97%

#350

GRID K520

MSRP: $3599|Avg: $50

92%

#351

GRID P40-12Q

MSRP: $5699|Avg: $5699

92%

#352

FirePro 2270

MSRP: $149|Avg: $30

90%

#353

FirePro 2460

MSRP: $180|Avg: $10

89%

#355

Quadro FX 580

MSRP: $199|Avg: $500

86%

#356

FirePro 3D V5700

MSRP: $599|Avg: $25

86%

#358

GRID M60-1B

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $120

85%

#359

FireStream 9270

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $20

84%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Tesla C2075 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID M10-4Q.

Insight	GRID M10-4Q	Tesla C2075
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.3%)	✅Leading raw performance (+1.3%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	🛑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 M10-4Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID M10-4Q holds the technical lead. Priced at $340 (vs $500), it costs 32% less, resulting in a 45.1% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GRID M10-4Q	Tesla C2075
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+45.1%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($340)	⚠️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.

GRID M10-4Q Benchmark Check

Tesla C2075 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GRID M10-4Q and Tesla C2075

GRID M10-4Q

The GRID M10-4Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 18 2016. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1033 MHz to 1306 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,977 points.

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 M10-4Q scores 2,977 and the Tesla C2075 reaches 3,017 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID M10-4Q is built on Maxwell while the Tesla C2075 uses Fermi 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 640 (GRID M10-4Q) vs 448 (Tesla C2075). Raw compute: 1.672 TFLOPS (GRID M10-4Q) vs 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2075).

Feature	GRID M10-4Q	Tesla C2075
G3D Mark Score	2,977	3,017+1%
Architecture	Maxwell	Fermi 2.0
Process Node	28 nm	40 nm
Shading Units	640+43%	448
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.672 TFLOPS+63%	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	GRID M10-4Q	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: 2 MB (GRID M10-4Q) vs 0.75 MB (Tesla C2075) — the GRID M10-4Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GRID M10-4Q	Tesla C2075
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB+167%	0.75 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GRID M10-4Q draws 225W versus the Tesla C2075's 247W — a 9.3% difference. The GRID M10-4Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID M10-4Q) vs 350W (Tesla C2075). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	GRID M10-4Q	Tesla C2075
TDP	225W-9%	247W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Slots	—	2
Temp (Load)	—	85°C
Perf/Watt	13.2+8%	12.2

💰

Value Analysis

The GRID M10-4Q launched at $2805 MSRP and currently averages $340, while the Tesla C2075 launched at $0 and now averages $500. The GRID M10-4Q costs 32% less ($160 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 8.8 (GRID M10-4Q) vs 6.0 (Tesla C2075) — the GRID M10-4Q offers 46.7% better value. The GRID M10-4Q is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2011).