Tesla C2075 vs Quadro K1200
Tesla C2075
Popular choices:
Quadro K1200
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 Quadro K1200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla C2075 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K1200 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Tesla C2075 | Quadro K1200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro K1200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro K1200 holds the technical lead. Priced at $184 (vs $500), it costs 63% less, resulting in a 167.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Tesla C2075 | Quadro K1200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+167.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) | ✅More affordable ($184) |
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 Quadro K1200
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.
Quadro K1200
The Quadro K1200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 28 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 954 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 45W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,965 points. Launch price was $321.97.
Graphics Performance
The Tesla C2075 scores 3,017 and the Quadro K1200 reaches 2,965 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla C2075 is built on Fermi 2.0 while the Quadro K1200 uses Maxwell, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 448 (Tesla C2075) vs 512 (Quadro K1200). Raw compute: 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2075) vs 1.0578 TFLOPS (Quadro K1200).
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | Quadro K1200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,017+2% | 2,965 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 448 | 512+14% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.028 TFLOPS | 1.0578 TFLOPS+3% |
| ROPs | 48+200% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+75% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+250% | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 2 MB+167% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | Quadro K1200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 C2075 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K1200 has 4 GB. The Quadro K1200 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.75 MB (Tesla C2075) vs 2 MB (Quadro K1200) — the Quadro K1200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | Quadro K1200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| 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 Quadro K1200's 45W — a 138.4% difference. The Quadro K1200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla C2075) vs 350W (Quadro K1200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | Quadro K1200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 247W | 45W-82% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 12.2 | 65.9+440% |
Value Analysis
The Tesla C2075 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the Quadro K1200 launched at $300 and now averages $184. The Quadro K1200 costs 63.2% less ($316 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 6.0 (Tesla C2075) vs 16.1 (Quadro K1200) — the Quadro K1200 offers 168.3% better value. The Quadro K1200 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | Tesla C2075 | Quadro K1200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $300 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $184-63% |
| Performance per Dollar | 6.0 | 16.1+168% |
| Codename | GF110 | GM107 |
| Release | July 25 2011 | January 28 2015 |
| Ranking | #553 | #586 |
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 Quadro K1200
