GeForce GTX 460 vs Tesla C2050

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tesla C2050 with GeForce GTX 460, including specs and performance data.

Tesla C2050
2011
3 GB GDDR5, 238 Watt
8.24
+40.4%

Tesla C2050 outperforms GTX 460 by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking508596
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.25
Power efficiency2.372.51
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGF100GF104
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date25 July 2011 (13 years ago)12 July 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores448336
Core clock speed574 MHz675 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)238 Watt160 Watt
Texture fill rate32.1437.80
Floating-point processing power1.028 TFLOPS0.9072 TFLOPS
ROPs4824
TMUs5656

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 supportno data16x PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length248 mm210 mm
Heightno data4.376"(111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin2x 6-pin
SLI options-+

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount3 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed750 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth144.0 GB/s86.4 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 Connectors1x DVITwo Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.1
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.0+

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.

Tesla C2050 8.24
+40.4%
GTX 460 5.87

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.

Tesla C2050 3175
+40.4%
GTX 460 2262

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Tesla C2050 39
+44.4%
GTX 460 27

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 8.24 5.87
Recency 25 July 2011 12 July 2010
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 238 Watt 160 Watt

Tesla C2050 has a 40.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 460, on the other hand, has 48.8% lower power consumption.

The Tesla C2050 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 in performance tests.

Be aware that Tesla C2050 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 460 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Tesla C2050
Tesla C2050
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460
GeForce GTX 460

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 16 votes

Rate Tesla C2050 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 1016 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.