NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2050

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and NVIDIA Tesla C2050 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M2000

• Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 8 month(s) later
• Around 38% higher core clock speed: 796 MHz vs 575 MHz
• Around 76% higher texture fill rate: 56.64 GTexel / s vs 32.2 GTexel / s
• Around 71% higher pipelines: 768 vs 448
• Around 76% better floating-point performance: 1,812 gflops vs 1,030.4 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• 3.2x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 238 Watt
• Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 3 GB
• 2.2x more memory clock speed: 6612 MHz vs 3000 MHz
• Around 26% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3996 vs 3176
• Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 564 vs 362
• Around 32% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14565 vs 11024
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 55.048 vs 26.055
• Around 24% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.697 vs 2.99
• 2.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 225.868 vs 89.869

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Tesla C2050

• Around 41% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 901.157 vs 639.056
• Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 41.654 vs 35.796
• Around 62% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 5962 vs 3684
• 2.7x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 9064 vs 3325
• Around 62% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 5962 vs 3684
• 2.7x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 9064 vs 3325

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Tesla C2050

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3996 3176
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	564 362
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	14565 11024
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	55.048 26.055
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	639.056 901.157
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.697 2.99
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	35.796 41.654
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	225.868 89.869
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3684 5962
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3325 9064
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3684 5962
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3325 9064

Compare specifications (specs)