FireStream 9250 vs Tesla C2050
In this comparison between FireStream 9250 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 FireStream 9250 will be the best choice, for others Tesla C2050 will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
FireStream 9250
Tesla C2050
Main Specs
| FireStream 9250 | Tesla C2050 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 3 GB |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI | 1x DVI |
- Tesla C2050 has 58% more power consumption, than FireStream 9250.
- Both video cards are using PCIe 2.0 x16 interface connection to a motherboard.
- Tesla C2050 has 2 GB more memory, than FireStream 9250.
- Both cards are used in Desktops.
- FireStream 9250 is build with TeraScale architecture, and Tesla C2050 - with Fermi.
- Core clock speed of FireStream 9250 is 51 MHz higher, than Tesla C2050.
- FireStream 9250 is manufactured by 55 nm process technology, and Tesla C2050 - by 40 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of Tesla C2050 is 1014 MHz higher, than FireStream 9250.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 2−3 | 18−20 |
| ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 10−11 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 21−24 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 340% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 7−8 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 24−27 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 6−7 |
| low / 720p | 18−20 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 7−8 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Battlefield 5 is 311% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | 35−40 | 50−55 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Call of Duty: Warzone is 15% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 220−230 |
| medium / 768p | 95−100 | 190−200 |
| ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 110−120 |
| QHD / 1440p | 35−40 | 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 101% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 80−85 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 18−20 | 45−50 |
| medium / 1080p | 50−55 | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 7% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 110−120 |
| medium / 768p | 50−55 | 100−110 |
| ultra / 1080p | 27−30 | 70−75 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Dota 2 is 86% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 20−22 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 18−20 |
| 4K / 2160p | 1−2 | 7−8 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 45−50 |
| medium / 1080p | 4−5 | 24−27 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Far Cry 5 is 380% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 10−12 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 3−4 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 50−55 | 110−120 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 60−65 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Fortnite is 182% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 8−9 | 30−35 |
| ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| low / 720p | 20−22 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 10−11 | 35−40 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Forza Horizon 4 is 245% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 50−55 | 95−100 |
| medium / 768p | − | 85−90 |
| high / 1080p | 8−9 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 14−16 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| medium / 720p | 40−45 | − |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Grand Theft Auto V is 138% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 2−3 | 10−12 |
| ultra / 1080p | 0−1 | 9−10 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| low / 720p | 7−8 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 4−5 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Metro Exodus is 425% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 110−120 |
| high / 1080p | 85−90 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 85−90 | − |
| 4K / 2160p | 75−80 | − |
| medium / 1080p | − | 110−120 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Minecraft is 32% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 14−16 | − |
| 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 FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 6−7 | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 9−10 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | − |
| low / 720p | 7−8 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 7−8 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 233% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 16−18 | 65−70 |
| medium / 768p | 12−14 | 40−45 |
| high / 1080p | 6−7 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 12−14 |
| 4K / 2160p | 2−3 | 7−8 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 275% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| 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 FireStream 9250. | ||
Full Specs
| FireStream 9250 | Tesla C2050 | |
| Architecture | TeraScale | Fermi |
| Code name | RV770 | GF100 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 16 June 2008 | 25 July 2011 |
| Pipelines | 800 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Transistor count | 956 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,000.0 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
| Length | 248 mm | |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1986 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | 144.0 GB/s |
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.0 | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 90 Mh/s | |