Tesla C2050 / C2070 vs GeForce GTX 960A
Tesla C2050 / C2070
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 960A
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 Tesla C2050 / C2070 is positioned at rank 327 and the GeForce GTX 960A is on rank 270, so the GeForce GTX 960A offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Tesla C2050 / C2070
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 960A
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 960A is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Tesla C2050 / C2070 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+200%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (248mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Tesla C2050 / C2070 holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $60), it costs 50% less, resulting in a 97.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+97.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($60) |
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 Tesla C2050 / C2070 and GeForce GTX 960A
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.
GeForce GTX 960A
The GeForce GTX 960A is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1029 MHz to 1085 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,465 points.
Graphics Performance
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 scores 3,428 and the GeForce GTX 960A reaches 3,465 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla C2050 / C2070 is built on Fermi while the GeForce GTX 960A uses Maxwell, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 448 (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 640 (GeForce GTX 960A). Raw compute: 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 1.389 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 960A).
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,428 | 3,465+1% |
| Architecture | Fermi | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 448 | 640+43% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.028 TFLOPS | 1.389 TFLOPS+35% |
| ROPs | 48+200% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+40% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+180% | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 2 MB+167% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 960A has 2 GB. The Tesla C2050 / C2070 offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.75 MB (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 2 MB (GeForce GTX 960A) — the GeForce GTX 960A has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB+200% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 2 MB+167% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11_0 (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 960A). Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 0.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11_0 | 12+9% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 0 |
Power & Dimensions
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 draws 238W versus the GeForce GTX 960A's 75W — a 104.2% difference. The GeForce GTX 960A is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 960A). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 248mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 238W | 75W-68% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 248mm | 1mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Perf/Watt | 14.4 | 46.2+221% |
Value Analysis
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 launched at $2499 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the GeForce GTX 960A launched at $199 and now averages $60. The Tesla C2050 / C2070 costs 50% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 114.3 (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 57.8 (GeForce GTX 960A) — the Tesla C2050 / C2070 offers 97.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 960A is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2499 | $199-92% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-50% | $60 |
| Performance per Dollar | 114.3+98% | 57.8 |
| Codename | GF100 | GM107 |
| Release | July 25 2011 | March 13 2015 |
| Ranking | #569 | #546 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Tesla C2050 / C2070 and GeForce GTX 960A
