Tesla C2050 vs Tesla K40m
Tesla C2050
Popular choices:
Tesla K40m
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 Tesla K40m is on rank 137, so the Tesla K40m 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 Tesla K40m
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla C2050 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla K40m.
| Insight | Tesla C2050 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Tesla C2050 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 and Tesla K40m
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.
Tesla K40m
The Tesla K40m is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 22 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 745 MHz to 876 MHz. It has 2880 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 245W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,143 points. Launch price was $7,699.
Graphics Performance
The Tesla C2050 scores 3,176 and the Tesla K40m reaches 3,143 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla C2050 is built on Fermi while the Tesla K40m uses Kepler, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 448 (Tesla C2050) vs 2,880 (Tesla K40m). Raw compute: 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2050) vs 5.046 TFLOPS (Tesla K40m).
| Feature | Tesla C2050 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,176+1% | 3,143 |
| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 448 | 2880+543% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.028 TFLOPS | 5.046 TFLOPS+391% |
| ROPs | 48 | 48 |
| TMUs | 56 | 240+329% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+273% | 240 KB |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 1.5 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Tesla C2050 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| 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 1.5 MB (Tesla K40m) — the Tesla K40m has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 1.5 MB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The Tesla C2050 draws 238W versus the Tesla K40m's 245W — a 2.9% difference. The Tesla C2050 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla C2050) vs 350W (Tesla K40m). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Tesla C2050 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 238W-3% | 245W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Perf/Watt | 13.3+4% | 12.8 |
Value Analysis
The Tesla K40m is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2011).
| Feature | Tesla C2050 | Tesla K40m |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2499 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $95 | — |
| Codename | GF100 | GK110B |
| Release | July 25 2011 | November 22 2013 |
| Ranking | #569 | #573 |
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 Tesla K40m
