FirePro M5950 vs Tesla C2050
In this comparison between FirePro M5950 and Tesla C2050 you will find out which graphics card performs better in today's games. Bear in mind that third-party versions may have more efficient cooling and higher clock speeds. This will increase cards' performance, though not by much. In addition to raw power you should also take into account the dimensions. Thicker models simply will not fit into a small mini-ITX case. The resolution of your monitor also affects the choice, since 4K gameplay requires a more powerful GPU. And don't overspend on the graphics card. Other parts of your build may also need to be upgraded, save some money for the CPU or power supply. For some people FirePro M5950 will be the best choice, for others Tesla C2050 will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
Tesla C2050
FirePro M5950 is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: FirePro M5950 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 M5950 here:
Main Specs
| FirePro M5950 | Tesla C2050 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 3 GB |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI |
| Check Price |
- Tesla C2050 has 580% more power consumption, than FirePro M5950.
- FirePro M5950 is connected by MXM-A (3.0), and Tesla C2050 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.
- Tesla C2050 has 2 GB more memory, than FirePro M5950.
- FirePro M5950 is used in Mobile workstations, and Tesla C2050 - in Desktops.
- FirePro M5950 is build with Terascale 2 architecture, and Tesla C2050 - with Fermi.
- Core clock speed of FirePro M5950 is 151 MHz higher, than Tesla C2050.
- FirePro M5950 and Tesla C2050 are manufactured by 40 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of Tesla C2050 is 2100 MHz higher, than FirePro M5950.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 4−5 | 18−20 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 10−11 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 6−7 | 21−24 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 214% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| high / 1080p | 9−10 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 24−27 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 6−7 |
| low / 720p | 20−22 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 9−10 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Battlefield 5 is 236% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| 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 M5950. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 220−230 |
| medium / 768p | 95−100 | 190−200 |
| ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 110−120 |
| QHD / 1440p | 27−30 | 70−75 |
| 4K / 2160p | 18−20 | 35−40 |
| high / 768p | 70−75 | 150−160 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 104% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| low / 768p | 65−70 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 21−24 | 45−50 |
| medium / 1080p | 50−55 | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 17% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 110−120 |
| medium / 768p | 50−55 | 100−110 |
| ultra / 1080p | 30−33 | 70−75 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Dota 2 is 83% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| high / 1080p | 5−6 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 20−22 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 18−20 |
| 4K / 2160p | 2−3 | 7−8 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 45−50 |
| medium / 1080p | 6−7 | 24−27 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Far Cry 5 is 300% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| high / 1080p | 12−14 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 7−8 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 55−60 | 110−120 |
| medium / 1080p | 18−20 | 60−65 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Fortnite is 140% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| high / 1080p | 9−10 | 30−35 |
| ultra / 1080p | 8−9 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 3−4 | 10−12 |
| 4K / 2160p | 3−4 | − |
| low / 720p | 21−24 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 10−12 | 35−40 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Forza Horizon 4 is 200% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 95−100 |
| medium / 768p | 40−45 | 85−90 |
| high / 1080p | 8−9 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 14−16 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Grand Theft Auto V is 136% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 10−12 |
| ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 9−10 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| low / 720p | 9−10 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Metro Exodus is 260% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 110−120 |
| ultra / 1080p | 75−80 | − |
| medium / 1080p | − | 110−120 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Minecraft is 32% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| high / 1080p | 16−18 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 65−70 |
| medium / 1080p | 16−18 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 65% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 9−10 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 9−10 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 8−9 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 175% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| low / 768p | 20−22 | 65−70 |
| medium / 768p | 12−14 | 40−45 |
| high / 1080p | 7−8 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 12−14 |
| 4K / 2160p | 2−3 | 7−8 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 233% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
| low / 768p | 80−85 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | 40−45 | 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 44% more, than FirePro M5950. | ||
Full Specs
| FirePro M5950 | Tesla C2050 | |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 | Fermi |
| Code name | Whistler-XT | GF100 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 April 2011 | 25 July 2011 |
| Pipelines | 480 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Transistor count | 716 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 17.40 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 696.0 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
| Length | 248 mm | |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57 GB/s | 144.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | |
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.0 | |
| Bus support | n/a | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 67 Mh/s | 90 Mh/s |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Form factor | MXM-A | |
| Check Price |