Tesla C2075 vs GRID M10-4Q
Tesla C2075
Popular choices:
GRID M10-4Q
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar GRID M10-4Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla C2075 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID M10-4Q.
| Insight | Tesla C2075 | GRID M10-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID M10-4Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID M10-4Q holds the technical lead. Priced at $340 (vs $500), it costs 32% less, resulting in a 45.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Tesla C2075 | GRID M10-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+45.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) | ✅More affordable ($340) |
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 C2075 and GRID M10-4Q
Tesla C2075
The Tesla C2075 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 25 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 574 MHz. It has 448 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 247W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,017 points.
GRID M10-4Q
The GRID M10-4Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 18 2016. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1033 MHz to 1306 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,977 points.
Graphics Performance
The Tesla C2075 scores 3,017 and the GRID M10-4Q reaches 2,977 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla C2075 is built on Fermi 2.0 while the GRID M10-4Q uses Maxwell, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 448 (Tesla C2075) vs 640 (GRID M10-4Q). Raw compute: 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2075) vs 1.672 TFLOPS (GRID M10-4Q).
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | GRID M10-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,017+1% | 2,977 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 448 | 640+43% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.028 TFLOPS | 1.672 TFLOPS+63% |
| 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 C2075 | GRID M10-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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 C2075) vs 2 MB (GRID M10-4Q) — the GRID M10-4Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | GRID M10-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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 C2075 draws 247W versus the GRID M10-4Q's 225W — a 9.3% difference. The GRID M10-4Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla C2075) vs 350W (GRID M10-4Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | GRID M10-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 247W | 225W-9% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 12.2 | 13.2+8% |
Value Analysis
The Tesla C2075 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the GRID M10-4Q launched at $2805 and now averages $340. The GRID M10-4Q costs 32% less ($160 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 6.0 (Tesla C2075) vs 8.8 (GRID M10-4Q) — the GRID M10-4Q offers 46.7% better value. The GRID M10-4Q is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2011).
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | GRID M10-4Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $2805 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $340-32% |
| Performance per Dollar | 6.0 | 8.8+47% |
| Codename | GF110 | GM107 |
| Release | July 25 2011 | May 18 2016 |
| Ranking | #553 | #622 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Tesla C2075 and GRID M10-4Q
