GeForce GTX 295 vs Tesla C2050
In this comparison between GeForce GTX 295 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 GTX 295 will be the best choice, for others Tesla C2050 will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
GeForce GTX 295
Tesla C2050
Main Specs
| GeForce GTX 295 | Tesla C2050 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin & 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 3 GB |
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI | 1x DVI |
- GeForce GTX 295 has 21% more power consumption, than Tesla C2050.
- Both video cards are using PCIe 2.0 x16 interface connection to a motherboard.
- GeForce GTX 295 has 1789 GB more memory, than Tesla C2050.
- Both cards are used in Desktops.
- GeForce GTX 295 is build with Tesla 2.0 architecture, and Tesla C2050 - with Fermi.
- Core clock speed of GeForce GTX 295 is 668 MHz higher, than Tesla C2050.
- GeForce GTX 295 is manufactured by 55 nm process technology, and Tesla C2050 - by 40 nm process technology.
- Tesla C2050 is 238 mm longer, than GeForce GTX 295.
- Memory clock speed of Tesla C2050 is 2001 MHz higher, than GeForce GTX 295.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 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 | 5−6 | 21−24 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 266% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 24−27 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 6−7 |
| low / 720p | 18−20 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 8−9 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Battlefield 5 is 263% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | 30−35 | 50−55 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Call of Duty: Warzone is 30% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 220−230 |
| medium / 768p | 90−95 | 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 GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 80−85 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 45−50 |
| medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 19% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| 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 GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | 5−6 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 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 257% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | 12−14 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 50−55 | 110−120 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 60−65 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Fortnite is 159% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | 7−8 | 30−35 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| low / 720p | 20−22 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 9−10 | 35−40 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Forza Horizon 4 is 266% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 95−100 |
| medium / 768p | − | 85−90 |
| high / 1080p | 8−9 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 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 150% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 10−12 |
| ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 9−10 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| low / 720p | 8−9 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 4−5 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Metro Exodus is 350% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 110−120 |
| high / 1080p | 85−90 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 80−85 | − |
| medium / 1080p | 85−90 | 110−120 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Minecraft is 32% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| 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 GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 9−10 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 8−9 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | − | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 187% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 16−18 | 65−70 |
| medium / 768p | 12−14 | 40−45 |
| high / 1080p | 6−7 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 12−14 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 7−8 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 260% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| 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 GTX 295. | ||
Full Specs
| GeForce GTX 295 | Tesla C2050 | |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Fermi |
| Code name | GT200B | GF100 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 | 25 July 2011 |
| Pipelines | 240 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1242 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Transistor count | 1,400 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | 32.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 596.2 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | 248 mm |
| Memory bus width | 896 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 223.8 GB/s | 144.0 GB/s |
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
| CUDA cores | 480 | |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
| SLI options | + | |
| Multi monitor support | + | |
| HDMI | + | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 90 Mh/s | |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 240 | |
| Standard memory config per GPU | 896 MB | |
| Memory interface width per GPU | 448 Bit | |
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | |