CPU
GPU
Radeon R7 260X
Popular choices:
Tesla C2050
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Tesla C2050
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R7 260X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.7% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla C2050.
| Insight | Radeon R7 260X | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Tesla C2050 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Tesla C2050 holds the technical lead. Priced at $95 (vs $150), it costs 37% less, resulting in a 56.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R7 260X | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+56.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($95) |
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 Radeon R7 260X and Tesla C2050
Radeon R7 260X
The Radeon R7 260X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 8 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 115W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,198 points. Launch price was $139.
Tesla C2050
The Tesla C2050 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: 3,176 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R7 260X scores 3,198 and the Tesla C2050 reaches 3,176 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R7 260X is built on GCN 2.0 while the Tesla C2050 uses Fermi, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 896 (Radeon R7 260X) vs 448 (Tesla C2050). Raw compute: 1.971 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 260X) vs 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2050).
| Feature | Radeon R7 260X | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,198 | 3,176 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Fermi |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+100% | 448 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.971 TFLOPS+92% | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48+200% |
| TMUs | 56 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | 896 KB+300% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 768 KB+200% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R7 260X | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (Radeon R7 260X) vs 768 KB (Tesla C2050) — the Tesla C2050 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R7 260X | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 768 KB+200% |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R7 260X draws 115W versus the Tesla C2050's 238W — a 69.7% difference. The Radeon R7 260X is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon R7 260X) vs 350W (Tesla C2050). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R7 260X | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 115W-52% | 238W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 350W-30% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 170mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 27.8+109% | 13.3 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R7 260X launched at $139 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the Tesla C2050 launched at $2499 and now averages $95. The Tesla C2050 costs 36.7% less ($55 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 21.3 (Radeon R7 260X) vs 33.4 (Tesla C2050) — the Tesla C2050 offers 56.8% better value. The Radeon R7 260X is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2011).
| Feature | Radeon R7 260X | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $139-94% | $2499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $95-37% |
| Performance per Dollar | 21.3 | 33.4+57% |
| Codename | Bonaire | GF100 |
| Release | October 8 2013 | July 25 2011 |
| Ranking | #568 | #569 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R7 260X and Tesla C2050
