Quadro M2000M vs Tesla C2050 / C2070
Quadro M2000M
Popular choices:
Tesla C2050 / C2070
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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro M2000M is positioned at rank 177 and the Tesla C2050 / C2070 is on rank 327, so the Quadro M2000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M2000M
Performance Per Dollar Tesla C2050 / C2070
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.5% 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 Quadro M2000M.
| Insight | Quadro M2000M | Tesla C2050 / C2070 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.5%) |
| 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
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Tesla C2050 / C2070 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 Quadro M2000M and Tesla C2050 / C2070
Quadro M2000M
The Quadro M2000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 3 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1029 MHz to 1098 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,410 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 Quadro M2000M scores 3,410 and the Tesla C2050 / C2070 reaches 3,428 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M2000M is built on Maxwell while the Tesla C2050 / C2070 uses Fermi, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 640 (Quadro M2000M) vs 448 (Tesla C2050 / C2070). Raw compute: 1.405 TFLOPS (Quadro M2000M) vs 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2050 / C2070).
| Feature | Quadro M2000M | Tesla C2050 / C2070 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,410 | 3,428 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 640+43% | 448 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.405 TFLOPS+37% | 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 | Quadro M2000M | Tesla C2050 / C2070 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The Quadro M2000M 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: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro M2000M) vs 0.75 MB (Tesla C2050 / C2070) — the Quadro M2000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M2000M | Tesla C2050 / C2070 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 6 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+167% | 0.75 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (Quadro M2000M) vs 11_0 (Tesla C2050 / C2070). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 1.
| Feature | Quadro M2000M | Tesla C2050 / C2070 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0)+9% | 11_0 |
| Max Displays | 4+300% | 1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M2000M draws 55W versus the Tesla C2050 / C2070's 238W — a 124.9% difference. The Quadro M2000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M2000M) vs 350W (Tesla C2050 / C2070). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro M2000M | Tesla C2050 / C2070 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-77% | 238W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 248mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 62.0+331% | 14.4 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M2000M is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | Quadro M2000M | Tesla C2050 / C2070 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $2499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $30 |
| Codename | GM107 | GF100 |
| Release | December 3 2015 | July 25 2011 |
| Ranking | #550 | #569 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M2000M and Tesla C2050 / C2070
