FirePro M4100 vs Tesla C2050
When comparing FirePro M4100 and Tesla C2050, we look primarily at benchmarks and game tests. But it is not only about the numbers. Often you can find third-party models with higher clock speeds, better cooling, or a customizable RGB lighting. Not all of them will have all the features you need. Another thing to consider is the port selection. Most graphics cards have at least one DisplayPort and HDMI interface, but some monitors require DVI. Before you buy, check the TDP of the graphics card - this characteristic will help you estimate the consumption of the graphics card. You may even have to upgrade your PSU to meet its requirements. An important factor when choosing between FirePro M4100 and Tesla C2050 is the price. Does the additional cost justify the performance hit? Our comparison should help you make the right decision.
Tesla C2050
FirePro M4100 is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: FirePro M4100 is only used in laptop graphics. It has lower GPU clock speed compared to the desktop variant, which results in lower power consumption, but also 10-30% lower gaming performance. Check available laptop models with FirePro M4100 here:
Main Specs
| FirePro M4100 | Tesla C2050 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI |
| Check Price |
- FirePro M4100 is connected by PCIe 3.0 x8, and Tesla C2050 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.
- Tesla C2050 has 1 GB more memory, than FirePro M4100.
- FirePro M4100 is used in Mobile workstations, and Tesla C2050 - in Desktops.
- FirePro M4100 is build with GCN architecture, and Tesla C2050 - with Fermi.
- Core clock speed of FirePro M4100 is 96 MHz higher, than Tesla C2050.
- FirePro M4100 is manufactured by 28 nm process technology, and Tesla C2050 - by 40 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of FirePro M4100 is 1000 MHz higher, than Tesla C2050.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 1−2 | 18−20 |
| ultra / 1080p | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 3−4 | 21−24 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 333% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 24−27 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 6−7 |
| low / 720p | 16−18 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 6−7 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Battlefield 5 is 344% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | 40−45 | 50−55 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Call of Duty: Warzone is 15% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 220−230 |
| medium / 768p | 95−100 | 190−200 |
| ultra / 1080p | 40−45 | 110−120 |
| QHD / 1440p | 24−27 | 70−75 |
| 4K / 2160p | 18−20 | 35−40 |
| high / 768p | 65−70 | 150−160 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 114% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 45−50 |
| medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 12% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 110−120 |
| medium / 768p | 50−55 | 100−110 |
| ultra / 1080p | 24−27 | 70−75 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Dota 2 is 90% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | 2−3 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 20−22 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 18−20 |
| 4K / 2160p | 1−2 | 7−8 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 45−50 |
| medium / 1080p | 3−4 | 24−27 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Far Cry 5 is 500% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | 10−11 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 2−3 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 50−55 | 110−120 |
| medium / 1080p | 12−14 | 60−65 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Fortnite is 200% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | 4−5 | 30−35 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| low / 720p | 18−20 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 7−8 | 35−40 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Forza Horizon 4 is 340% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 95−100 |
| medium / 768p | − | 85−90 |
| high / 1080p | 5−6 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 14−16 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| medium / 720p | 35−40 | − |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Grand Theft Auto V is 177% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | 1−2 | 10−12 |
| ultra / 1080p | 0−1 | 9−10 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| low / 720p | 5−6 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 3−4 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Metro Exodus is 600% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 90−95 | 110−120 |
| high / 1080p | 85−90 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 70−75 | − |
| medium / 1080p | 90−95 | 110−120 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Minecraft is 25% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 65−70 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 83% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 9−10 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 6−7 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | − | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 360% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 12−14 | 65−70 |
| medium / 768p | 9−10 | 40−45 |
| high / 1080p | 4−5 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 12−14 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 414% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | 35−40 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 35−40 |
| high / 768p | 30−35 | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in World of Tanks is 51% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
Full Specs
| FirePro M4100 | Tesla C2050 | |
| Architecture | GCN | Fermi |
| Code name | Mars | GF100 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 October 2013 | 25 July 2011 |
| Pipelines | 384 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 670 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Transistor count | 950 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 16.08 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 514.6 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
| Length | 248 mm | |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 144.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | |
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.0 | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 74 Mh/s | 90 Mh/s |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Check Price |