Tesla C2070 vs Quadro K2200M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K2200M with Tesla C2070, including specs and performance data.
K2200M outperforms C2070 by a moderate 13% 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 | 554 | 590 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.09 | 2.43 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 19 July 2014 (12 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) |
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 | 640 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.68 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8538 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 40 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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).
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 248 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
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 | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 747 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.0 | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.48 | 7.49 |
| Recency | 19 July 2014 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 238 Watt |
K2200M has a 13% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 266% lower power consumption.
Tesla C2070, on the other hand, has a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro K2200M is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2070 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K2200M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Tesla C2070 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.
