GeForce 210 vs Tesla C2050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla C2050 with GeForce 210, including specs and performance data.
Tesla C2050 outperforms 210 by a whopping 2643% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 505 | 1323 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.41 | 0.67 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GT218 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $29.49 |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 448 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 589 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | 30.5 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 4.160 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.028 TFLOPS | 0.03936 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 4 |
| TMUs | 56 | 8 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.731" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | 8.0 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI | DVIVGADisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.0 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.23 | 0.30 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 12 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 512 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | 30 Watt |
Tesla C2050 has a 2643.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GeForce 210, on the other hand, has 693.3% lower power consumption.
The Tesla C2050 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 210 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla C2050 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce 210 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
