Tesla C2050 / C2070 vs Quadro M2000M
Tesla C2050 / C2070
Popular choices:
Quadro M2000M
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 Quadro M2000M is on rank 177, 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 Tesla C2050 / C2070
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M2000M
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 | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.5%) |
| 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
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 Tesla C2050 / C2070 and Quadro M2000M
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 scores 3,428 and the Quadro M2000M reaches 3,410 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla C2050 / C2070 is built on Fermi while the Quadro M2000M uses Maxwell, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 448 (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 640 (Quadro M2000M). Raw compute: 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 1.405 TFLOPS (Quadro M2000M).
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,428 | 3,410 |
| Architecture | Fermi | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 448 | 640+43% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.028 TFLOPS | 1.405 TFLOPS+37% |
| 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 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Tesla C2050 / C2070 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M2000M has 4 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: 0.75 MB (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 2 MB (Quadro M2000M) — the Quadro M2000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB+50% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 2 MB+167% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11_0 (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 12 (11_0) (Quadro M2000M). Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 4.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11_0 | 12 (11_0)+9% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 4+300% |
Power & Dimensions
The Tesla C2050 / C2070 draws 238W versus the Quadro M2000M's 55W — a 124.9% difference. The Quadro M2000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla C2050 / C2070) vs 350W (Quadro M2000M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 238W | 55W-77% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 248mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | — | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 14.4 | 62.0+331% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M2000M is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | Tesla C2050 / C2070 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2499 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30 | — |
| Codename | GF100 | GM107 |
| Release | July 25 2011 | December 3 2015 |
| Ranking | #569 | #550 |
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 Quadro M2000M
