NVIDIA Tesla C2075 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Tesla C2075
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 month(s) later
- Around 48% lower typical power consumption: 247 Watt vs 365 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 6 GB vs 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU)
- Around 76% higher memory clock speed: 3000 MHz vs 1707 MHz
- Around 9% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 428 vs 394
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3705 vs 3683
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3705 vs 3683
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 25 July 2011 vs 24 March 2011 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 247 Watt vs 365 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 6 GB vs 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) |
| Memory clock speed | 3000 MHz vs 1707 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 428 vs 394 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3705 vs 3683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 vs 3330 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3705 vs 3683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 vs 3330 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590
- 2.1x more core clock speed: 1215 MHz vs 575 MHz
- 2.4x more texture fill rate: 77.7 billion / sec vs 32.2 GTexel / s
- 2.3x more pipelines: 1024 vs 448
- 2.4x better floating-point performance: 2x 1,244.2 gflops vs 1,030.4 gflops
- Around 11% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3341 vs 3017
- Around 22% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12811 vs 10493
- Around 15% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 30.921 vs 26.973
- Around 20% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1116.126 vs 930.623
- Around 21% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.799 vs 3.142
- Around 7% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 49.114 vs 45.924
- Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 107.239 vs 93.747
- Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4118 vs 2825
- Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4118 vs 2825
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1215 MHz vs 575 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 77.7 billion / sec vs 32.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1024 vs 448 |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 1,244.2 gflops vs 1,030.4 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3341 vs 3017 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12811 vs 10493 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 30.921 vs 26.973 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1116.126 vs 930.623 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.799 vs 3.142 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 49.114 vs 45.924 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 107.239 vs 93.747 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4118 vs 2825 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4118 vs 2825 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Tesla C2075
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Tesla C2075 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3017 | 3341 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 428 | 394 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10493 | 12811 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.973 | 30.921 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 930.623 | 1116.126 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.142 | 3.799 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.924 | 49.114 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 93.747 | 107.239 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2825 | 4118 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3705 | 3683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 | 3330 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2825 | 4118 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3705 | 3683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 | 3330 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Tesla C2075 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
| Code name | GF110 | GF110 |
| Launch date | 25 July 2011 | 24 March 2011 |
| Place in performance rating | 787 | 789 |
| Type | Workstation | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | |
| Price now | $184 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 30.41 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 1215 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,030.4 gflops | 2x 1,244.2 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 448 | 1024 |
| Texture fill rate | 32.2 GTexel / s | 77.7 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 247 Watt | 365 Watt |
| Transistor count | 3,000 million | 3,000 million |
| CUDA cores | 1024 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI | 3x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort, Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 11" (280 mm) (27.9 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | Two 8-pin |
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
| SLI options | Quad | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.0 GB / s | 327.7 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) |
| Memory clock speed | 3000 MHz | 1707 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| SLI | ||
| Surround | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Tesla C2075 with others
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6970M
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 590
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
NVIDIATesla M2070-Q
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 825M
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M1200 Mobile
