RTX A400 vs Tesla C2050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla C2050 with RTX A400, including specs and performance data.
Tesla C2050 outperforms RTX A400 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 501 | 509 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 16 April 2024 (less than a year ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 448 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1762 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 42.29 |
| Floating-point performance | 1.028 gflops | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 248 mm | 163 mm |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3000 MHz | 12 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | 96 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 8.6 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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 | 8.09 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 16 April 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | 50 Watt |
Tesla C2050 has a 1.7% higher aggregate performance score.
RTX A400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 400% more advanced lithography process, and 376% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Tesla C2050 and RTX A400.
Be aware that Tesla C2050 is a workstation graphics card while RTX A400 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.
