Tesla C2050 / C2070 vs GeForce GTX 960M
Tesla C2050 / C2070
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 960M
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 960M is on rank 35, so the GeForce GTX 960M 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 960M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.6% 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 GeForce GTX 960M.
| Insight | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (248mm) | — |
💎 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 $50), it costs 40% less, resulting in a 69.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+69.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) |
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 960M
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 960M
The GeForce GTX 960M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1096 MHz to 1176 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,375 points.
Graphics Performance
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 scores 3,428 and the GeForce GTX 960M reaches 3,375 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla C2050 / C2070 is built on Fermi while the GeForce GTX 960M uses Maxwell, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 448 (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 640 (GeForce GTX 960M). Raw compute: 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 1.505 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 960M).
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,428+2% | 3,375 |
| Architecture | Fermi | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 448 | 640+43% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.028 TFLOPS | 1.505 TFLOPS+46% |
| 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 960M |
|---|---|---|
| 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 960M has 4 GB. The Tesla C2050 / C2070 offers 50% 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 960M) — the GeForce GTX 960M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB+50% | 4 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 (11_0) (GeForce GTX 960M). Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 4.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11_0 | 12 (11_0)+9% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 4+300% |
Power & Dimensions
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 draws 238W versus the GeForce GTX 960M's 75W — a 104.2% difference. The GeForce GTX 960M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 960M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 248mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 238W | 75W-68% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 248mm | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | — | 82 |
| Perf/Watt | 14.4 | 45.0+213% |
Value Analysis
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 costs 40% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 114.3 (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 67.5 (GeForce GTX 960M) — the Tesla C2050 / C2070 offers 69.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 960M is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | GeForce GTX 960M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2499 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-40% | $50 |
| Performance per Dollar | 114.3+69% | 67.5 |
| Codename | GF100 | GM107 |
| Release | July 25 2011 | March 13 2015 |
| Ranking | #569 | #552 |
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 960M
