Tesla M2070 vs GeForce GTX 570M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 570M with Tesla M2070, including specs and performance data.
M2070 outperforms 570M by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 719 | 713 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 4.58 | 1.55 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 28 June 2011 (15 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 336 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.20 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7728 TFLOPS | 1.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 48 |
| TMUs | 56 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | 768 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 248 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72.0 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 37
+5.7%
| 35−40
−5.7%
|
| Full HD | 53
+6%
| 50−55
−6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 61.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+3.6%
|
55−60
−3.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+4%
|
75−80
−4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+11.4%
|
35−40
−11.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+3.6%
|
55−60
−3.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+11.4%
|
35−40
−11.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+3.6%
|
55−60
−3.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+10%
|
40−45
−10%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GTX 570M and Tesla M2070 compete in popular games:
- GTX 570M is 6% faster in 900p
- GTX 570M is 6% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.44 | 4.52 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 6 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
GTX 570M has 200% lower power consumption.
Tesla M2070, on the other hand, has a 2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 570M and Tesla M2070.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 570M is a notebook graphics card while Tesla M2070 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
