Tesla C2050 vs GRID P4-2Q
Tesla C2050
Popular choices:
GRID P4-2Q
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 is positioned at rank 334 and the GRID P4-2Q is on rank 285, so the GRID P4-2Q 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
Performance Per Dollar GRID P4-2Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla C2050 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.4% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID P4-2Q.
| Insight | Tesla C2050 | GRID P4-2Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 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 $235), it costs 60% less, resulting in a 148.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Tesla C2050 | GRID P4-2Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+148.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($95) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($235) |
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 and GRID P4-2Q
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.
GRID P4-2Q
The GRID P4-2Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 557 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,162 points.
Graphics Performance
The Tesla C2050 scores 3,176 and the GRID P4-2Q reaches 3,162 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla C2050 is built on Fermi while the GRID P4-2Q uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 448 (Tesla C2050) vs 2,048 (GRID P4-2Q). Raw compute: 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2050) vs 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID P4-2Q).
| Feature | Tesla C2050 | GRID P4-2Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,176 | 3,162 |
| Architecture | Fermi | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 448 | 2048+357% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.028 TFLOPS | 4.825 TFLOPS+369% |
| ROPs | 48 | 64+33% |
| TMUs | 56 | 128+129% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+17% | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 2 MB+167% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Tesla C2050 | GRID P4-2Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.75 MB (Tesla C2050) vs 2 MB (GRID P4-2Q) — the GRID P4-2Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 | GRID P4-2Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 2 MB+167% |
Power & Dimensions
The Tesla C2050 draws 238W versus the GRID P4-2Q's 225W — a 5.6% difference. The GRID P4-2Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla C2050) vs 350W (GRID P4-2Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 | GRID P4-2Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 238W | 225W-5% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Perf/Watt | 13.3 | 14.1+6% |
Value Analysis
The Tesla C2050 launched at $2499 MSRP and currently averages $95, while the GRID P4-2Q launched at $1500 and now averages $235. The Tesla C2050 costs 59.6% less ($140 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 33.4 (Tesla C2050) vs 13.5 (GRID P4-2Q) — the Tesla C2050 offers 147.4% better value. The GRID P4-2Q is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | Tesla C2050 | GRID P4-2Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2499 | $1500-40% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $95-60% | $235 |
| Performance per Dollar | 33.4+147% | 13.5 |
| Codename | GF100 | GM204 |
| Release | July 25 2011 | August 30 2015 |
| Ranking | #569 | #433 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Tesla C2050 and GRID P4-2Q
