Tesla M2070 vs Quadro P1000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P1000 and Tesla M2070, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
P1000 outperforms M2070 by a whopping 140% 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 | 478 | 713 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.36 | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 20.98 | 1.55 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 February 2017 (9 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $375 | $3,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro P1000 has 4620% better value for money than Tesla M2070.
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 | 640 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1493 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1519 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.61 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.555 TFLOPS | 1.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 32 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 248 mm |
| Width | MXM Module | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 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 | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.13 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 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:
| Full HD | 43
+169%
| 16−18
−169%
|
| 4K | 11
+175%
| 4−5
−175%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.72
+2121%
| 193.69
−2121%
|
| 4K | 34.09
+2173%
| 774.75
−2173%
|
- Quadro P1000 has 2121% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Quadro P1000 has 2173% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 32
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+141%
|
27−30
−141%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+150%
|
40−45
−150%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+146%
|
65−70
−146%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+153%
|
30−33
−153%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 29
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+141%
|
27−30
−141%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+150%
|
40−45
−150%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+153%
|
30−33
−153%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+150%
|
40−45
−150%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+141%
|
27−30
−141%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+177%
|
30−33
−177%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+157%
|
21−24
−157%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+142%
|
45−50
−142%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+150%
|
16−18
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
This is how Quadro P1000 and Tesla M2070 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P1000 is 169% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P1000 is 175% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.85 | 4.52 |
| Recency | 7 February 2017 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 225 Watt |
Quadro P1000 has a 140% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 463% lower power consumption.
Tesla M2070, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro P1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
