Tesla M10 vs Tesla C2050
Tesla M10
Popular choices:
Tesla C2050
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 M10 is positioned at rank 334 and the Tesla C2050 is on rank 334, so the Tesla C2050 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Tesla M10
Performance Per Dollar Tesla C2050
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla C2050 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla M10.
| Insight | Tesla M10 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | — |
💎 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 $500), it costs 81% less, resulting in a 426.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Tesla M10 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+426.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) | ✅More affordable ($95) |
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 M10 and Tesla C2050
Tesla M10
The Tesla M10 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 ×4 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,173 points.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Tesla M10 scores 3,173 and the Tesla C2050 reaches 3,176 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla M10 is built on Maxwell while the Tesla C2050 uses Fermi, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 640 (Tesla M10) vs 448 (Tesla C2050). Raw compute: 1.672 TFLOPS ×4 (Tesla M10) vs 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2050).
| Feature | Tesla M10 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,173 | 3,176 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 ×4+43% | 448 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.672 TFLOPS ×4+63% | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×4 | 48+200% |
| TMUs | 40 ×4 | 56+40% |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 896 KB+180% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+167% | 0.75 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Tesla M10 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 2 MB (Tesla M10) vs 0.75 MB (Tesla C2050) — the Tesla M10 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla M10 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+167% | 0.75 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Tesla M10 draws 225W versus the Tesla C2050's 238W — a 5.6% difference. The Tesla M10 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla M10) vs 350W (Tesla C2050). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Tesla M10 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W-5% | 238W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 14.1+6% | 13.3 |
Value Analysis
The Tesla M10 launched at $2500 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the Tesla C2050 launched at $2499 and now averages $95. The Tesla C2050 costs 81% less ($405 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 6.3 (Tesla M10) vs 33.4 (Tesla C2050) — the Tesla C2050 offers 430.2% better value. The Tesla M10 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2011).
| Feature | Tesla M10 | Tesla C2050 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2500 | $2499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $95-81% |
| Performance per Dollar | 6.3 | 33.4+430% |
| Codename | GM107 | GF100 |
| Release | May 18 2016 | July 25 2011 |
| Ranking | #570 | #569 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Tesla M10 and Tesla C2050
