GeForce GT 650M vs Tesla C2050
In this comparison between GeForce GT 650M 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 GeForce GT 650M will be the best choice, for others Tesla C2050 will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
Tesla C2050
GeForce GT 650M is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: GeForce GT 650M 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 GeForce GT 650M here:
Main Specs
| GeForce GT 650M | Tesla C2050 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
| Memory type | DDR3\GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI |
| Check Price |
- Tesla C2050 has 428% more power consumption, than GeForce GT 650M.
- GeForce GT 650M is connected by PCIe 3.0 x16, and Tesla C2050 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.
- Tesla C2050 has 1 GB more memory, than GeForce GT 650M.
- GeForce GT 650M is used in Laptops, and Tesla C2050 - in Desktops.
- GeForce GT 650M is build with Kepler architecture, and Tesla C2050 - with Fermi.
- GeForce GT 650M is manufactured by 28 nm process technology, and Tesla C2050 - by 40 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of Tesla C2050 is 1200 MHz higher, than GeForce GT 650M.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 18−20 |
| ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 10−11 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 21−24 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 266% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 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 263% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| low / 768p | 50−55 | 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 10% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 220−230 |
| medium / 768p | 95−100 | 190−200 |
| ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 110−120 |
| QHD / 1440p | 24−27 | 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 107% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| low / 768p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 21−24 | 45−50 |
| medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 30% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| low / 768p | 80−85 | 110−120 |
| medium / 768p | 55−60 | 100−110 |
| ultra / 1080p | 27−30 | 70−75 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Dota 2 is 73% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 4−5 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 20−22 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 18−20 |
| 4K / 2160p | 2−3 | 7−8 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 45−50 |
| medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 24−27 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Far Cry 5 is 300% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 10−12 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 4−5 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 55−60 | 110−120 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 60−65 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Fortnite is 166% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 8−9 | 30−35 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 3−4 | 10−12 |
| 4K / 2160p | 3−4 | − |
| low / 720p | 21−24 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 10−11 | 35−40 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Forza Horizon 4 is 230% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| low / 768p | 50−55 | 95−100 |
| medium / 768p | 40−45 | 85−90 |
| high / 1080p | 8−9 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 14−16 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Grand Theft Auto V is 126% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 2−3 | 10−12 |
| ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 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 350% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| low / 768p | 90−95 | 110−120 |
| high / 1080p | 85−90 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 80−85 | − |
| medium / 1080p | − | 110−120 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Minecraft is 25% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| 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 GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 9−10 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 7−8 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | − | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 228% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| 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 GeForce GT 650M. | ||
| low / 768p | 70−75 | 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 58% more, than GeForce GT 650M. | ||
Full Specs
| GeForce GT 650M | Tesla C2050 | |
| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |
| Code name | N13E-GE | GF100 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 | 25 July 2011 |
| Pipelines | 384 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | |
| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | |
| Transistor count | 1,270 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | |
| Floating-point performance | 652.8 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
| Length | 248 mm | |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 - 4000 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | |
| Shared memory | - | |
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
| CUDA cores | 384 | |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| HDMI | + | |
| HDCP | + | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | |
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 21 Mh/s | 90 Mh/s |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Optimus | + | |
| Check Price |