Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs Tesla C2050
In this comparison between Iris Pro Graphics 6200 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 Iris Pro Graphics 6200 will be the best choice, for others Tesla C2050 will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
Tesla C2050
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: Iris Pro Graphics 6200 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 Iris Pro Graphics 6200 here:
Main Specs
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | Tesla C2050 | |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 238 Watt |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
Memory type | System Shared | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | |
Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI |
Check Price |
- Tesla C2050 has 1486% more power consumption, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200.
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is connected by PCIe 2.0 x1, and Tesla C2050 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is used in Laptops, and Tesla C2050 - in Desktops.
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is build with Gen. 8 Broadwell architecture, and Tesla C2050 - with Fermi.
- Core clock speed of Tesla C2050 is 274 MHz higher, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200.
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is manufactured by 14 nm process technology, and Tesla C2050 - by 40 nm process technology.
Game benchmarks
high / 1080p | 4−5 | 18−20 |
ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 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 266% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
high / 1080p | − | 27−30 |
ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 24−27 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 8−9 |
4K / 2160p | − | 6−7 |
low / 720p | 16−18 | 60−65 |
medium / 1080p | 8−9 | 30−35 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Battlefield 5 is 263% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
low / 768p | 45−50 | 50−55 |
high / 1080p | 45−50 | 50−55 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Call of Duty: Warzone is 10% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
low / 768p | 110−120 | 220−230 |
medium / 768p | 85−90 | 190−200 |
ultra / 1080p | 40−45 | 110−120 |
QHD / 1440p | 24−27 | 70−75 |
4K / 2160p | − | 35−40 |
high / 768p | 60−65 | 150−160 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 130% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
low / 768p | 55−60 | 60−65 |
ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 45−50 |
medium / 1080p | 45−50 | 55−60 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 41% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
low / 768p | 70−75 | 110−120 |
medium / 768p | 45−50 | 100−110 |
ultra / 1080p | 24−27 | 70−75 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Dota 2 is 102% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
high / 1080p | 6−7 | 21−24 |
ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 20−22 |
QHD / 1440p | − | 18−20 |
4K / 2160p | 3−4 | 7−8 |
low / 720p | 12−14 | 45−50 |
medium / 1080p | 6−7 | 24−27 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Far Cry 5 is 242% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
high / 1080p | 12−14 | 27−30 |
ultra / 1080p | 8−9 | 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 Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
high / 1080p | 9−10 | 30−35 |
ultra / 1080p | − | 21−24 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 10−12 |
low / 720p | 18−20 | 60−65 |
medium / 1080p | 10−11 | 35−40 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Forza Horizon 4 is 238% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
low / 768p | 40−45 | 95−100 |
medium / 768p | 35−40 | 85−90 |
high / 1080p | 8−9 | 35−40 |
ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 14−16 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 5−6 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Grand Theft Auto V is 156% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
high / 1080p | 3−4 | 10−12 |
ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 9−10 |
4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 2−3 |
low / 720p | 8−9 | 35−40 |
medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 14−16 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Metro Exodus is 260% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
low / 768p | 85−90 | 110−120 |
high / 1080p | 80−85 | − |
ultra / 1080p | 70−75 | − |
medium / 1080p | − | 110−120 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in Minecraft is 32% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
high / 1080p | 16−18 | − |
ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
low / 720p | 24−27 | 65−70 |
medium / 1080p | 16−18 | 18−20 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 73% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
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 Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
low / 768p | 16−18 | 65−70 |
medium / 768p | 12−14 | 40−45 |
high / 1080p | 7−8 | 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 Iris Pro Graphics 6200. | ||
low / 768p | 80−85 | 90−95 |
medium / 768p | 35−40 | 60−65 |
ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 35−40 |
high / 768p | 30−35 | 55−60 |
The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2050 in World of Tanks is 51% more, than Iris Pro Graphics 6200. |
Full Specs
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | Tesla C2050 | |
Architecture | Gen. 8 Broadwell | Fermi |
Code name | Broadwell GT3e | GF100 |
Type | Laptop | Workstation |
Release date | 2 June 2015 | 25 July 2011 |
Pipelines | 48 | 448 |
Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 574 MHz |
Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | |
Transistor count | 189 million | 3,100 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
Texture fill rate | 40.80 | 32.14 |
Floating-point performance | 883.2 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
Length | 248 mm | |
Memory bus width | 384 Bit | |
Memory clock speed | 3000 MHz | |
Memory bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | |
Shared memory | + | |
DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
Vulkan | 1.1.80 | N/A |
CUDA | 2.0 | |
Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 90 Mh/s | |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
Quick Sync | + | |
Check Price |
Similar compares
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs Radeon HD 7770M
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2
- Tesla C2050 vs Radeon HD 7770M
- Tesla C2050 vs Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs Radeon RX Vega M GL
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs Quadro M2000M
- Tesla C2050 vs Radeon RX Vega M GL
- Tesla C2050 vs Quadro M2000M