Tesla M2070 vs ATI Radeon HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 with Tesla M2070, including specs and performance data.
M2070 outperforms HD 4850 by an impressive 84% 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 | 893 | 713 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.23 | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 1.73 | 1.55 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (18 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $3,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
ATI HD 4850 has 360% 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 | 800 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 1.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 40 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 246 mm | 248 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | 150.3 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 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 | 28
−78.6%
| 50−55
+78.6%
|
| Full HD | 40
−75%
| 70−75
+75%
|
| 1200p | 19
−57.9%
| 30−35
+57.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.98
+790%
| 44.27
−790%
|
- ATI HD 4850 has 790% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−78.6%
|
75−80
+78.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−77.1%
|
85−90
+77.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−80%
|
45−50
+80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−78.6%
|
75−80
+78.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−80%
|
45−50
+80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−78.6%
|
75−80
+78.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−66.7%
|
30−33
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−73.9%
|
40−45
+73.9%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
−75%
|
35−40
+75%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−80%
|
27−30
+80%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and Tesla M2070 compete in popular games:
- Tesla M2070 is 79% faster in 900p
- Tesla M2070 is 75% faster in 1080p
- Tesla M2070 is 58% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.46 | 4.52 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 225 Watt |
ATI HD 4850 has 105% lower power consumption.
Tesla M2070, on the other hand, has a 84% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 38% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla M2070 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop 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.
