Radeon R9 M395 vs Tesla C2050
In this comparison between Radeon R9 M395 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 Radeon R9 M395 will be the best choice, for others Tesla C2050 will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
Tesla C2050
Radeon R9 M395 is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: Radeon R9 M395 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 Radeon R9 M395 here:
Main Specs
| Radeon R9 M395 | Tesla C2050 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI | |
| Check Price |
- Radeon R9 M395 has 1 GB more memory, than Tesla C2050.
- Radeon R9 M395 is used in Laptops, and Tesla C2050 - in Desktops.
- Radeon R9 M395 is build with GCN architecture, and Tesla C2050 - with Fermi.
- Core clock speed of Radeon R9 M395 is 260 MHz higher, than Tesla C2050.
- Radeon R9 M395 is manufactured by 28 nm process technology, and Tesla C2050 - by 40 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of Tesla C2050 is 1750 MHz higher, than Radeon R9 M395.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 35−40 | 18−20 |
| ultra / 1080p | 21−24 | 10−11 |
| QHD / 1440p | 16−18 | 4−5 |
| 4K / 2160p | 10−11 | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 60−65 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 21−24 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 100% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| high / 1080p | 55−60 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 24−27 |
| QHD / 1440p | 35−40 | 8−9 |
| 4K / 2160p | 18−20 | 6−7 |
| low / 720p | 100−110 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 60−65 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in Battlefield 5 is 100% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| low / 768p | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | − | 50−55 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Radeon R9 M395 and Tesla C2050 have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone. | ||
| low / 768p | 250−260 | 220−230 |
| medium / 768p | 220−230 | 190−200 |
| ultra / 1080p | 180−190 | 110−120 |
| QHD / 1440p | 110−120 | 70−75 |
| 4K / 2160p | 70−75 | 35−40 |
| high / 768p | 210−220 | 150−160 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 33% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| low / 768p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 45−50 |
| medium / 1080p | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| Radeon R9 M395 and Tesla C2050 have the same average FPS in Cyberpunk 2077. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 110−120 |
| medium / 768p | 110−120 | 100−110 |
| ultra / 1080p | 100−110 | 70−75 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in Dota 2 is 18% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| high / 1080p | 45−50 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 40−45 | 20−22 |
| QHD / 1440p | 27−30 | 18−20 |
| 4K / 2160p | 14−16 | 7−8 |
| low / 720p | 80−85 | 45−50 |
| medium / 1080p | 45−50 | 24−27 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in Far Cry 5 is 86% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| high / 1080p | 60−65 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 27−30 | 14−16 |
| 4K / 2160p | 27−30 | − |
| low / 720p | 180−190 | 110−120 |
| medium / 1080p | 110−120 | 60−65 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in Fortnite is 81% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| high / 1080p | 60−65 | 30−35 |
| ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 30−35 | 10−12 |
| 4K / 2160p | 24−27 | − |
| low / 720p | 100−110 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 65−70 | 35−40 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in Forza Horizon 4 is 90% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| low / 768p | 140−150 | 95−100 |
| medium / 768p | 120−130 | 85−90 |
| high / 1080p | 70−75 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 30−35 | 14−16 |
| QHD / 1440p | 21−24 | 5−6 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in Grand Theft Auto V is 64% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| high / 1080p | 24−27 | 10−12 |
| ultra / 1080p | 20−22 | 9−10 |
| QHD / 1440p | 16−18 | − |
| 4K / 2160p | 8−9 | 2−3 |
| low / 720p | 65−70 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 30−35 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in Metro Exodus is 106% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| low / 768p | 130−140 | 110−120 |
| medium / 1080p | 120−130 | 110−120 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in Minecraft is 13% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 100−110 | 65−70 |
| medium / 1080p | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 39% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| high / 1080p | 24−27 | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 9−10 |
| QHD / 1440p | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| 4K / 2160p | 7−8 | − |
| low / 720p | 65−70 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 35−40 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 80% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| low / 768p | 130−140 | 65−70 |
| medium / 768p | 85−90 | 40−45 |
| high / 1080p | 45−50 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 24−27 | 12−14 |
| 4K / 2160p | 16−18 | 7−8 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 106% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
| low / 768p | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 50−55 | 35−40 |
| high / 768p | 60−65 | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M395 in World of Tanks is 8% more, than Tesla C2050. | ||
Full Specs
| Radeon R9 M395 | Tesla C2050 | |
| Architecture | GCN | Fermi |
| Code name | GF100 | |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 9 June 2015 | 25 July 2011 |
| Pipelines | 1792 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 834 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Transistor count | 5000 Million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | |
| Floating-point performance | 1,030.4 gflops | |
| Length | 248 mm | |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | |
| Shared memory | - | |
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.0 | |
| FreeSync | + | |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 336 Mh/s | 90 Mh/s |
| Laptop size | large | |
| Eyefinity | + | |
| HD3D | + | |
| PowerTune | + | |
| DualGraphics | + | |
| TrueAudio | + | |
| ZeroCore | + | |
| Switchable graphics | + | |
| Mantle | + | |
| Check Price |