Quadro 3000M vs Tesla M2070

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
4000 4000 Mac Edition 5000 5000 SDI 6000 6000 SDI Tesla C2050 Tesla C2070 Tesla M2050 Tesla M2070 Tesla M2070-Q Tesla S2050
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
1000M 2000M 3000M 3000M X2 4000M 5000M 5010M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tesla M2070 with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.

Tesla M2070
2011, $3,099
6 GB GDDR5, 225 Watt
4.52
+87.6%

M2070 outperforms 3000M by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Tesla M2070 Tesla M2070
Quadro 3000M Quadro 3000M

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking713901
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.050.11
Power efficiency1.552.49
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGF100GF104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date25 July 2011 (15 years ago)22 February 2011 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,099 $398.96

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

Quadro 3000M has 120% 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 cores448240
Core clock speed574 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate32.1418.00
Floating-point processing power1.03 TFLOPS0.432 TFLOPS
ROPs4832
TMUs5640
L1 Cache896 KB320 KB
L2 Cache768 KB512 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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed783 MHz625 MHz
Memory bandwidth150.3 GB/s80 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.02.1

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 HD95−100
+86.3%
51
−86.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p32.62
−317%
7.82
+317%
  • Quadro 3000M has 317% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Palworld 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Palworld 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Palworld 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Palworld 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Palworld 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Tesla M2070 and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:

  • Tesla M2070 is 86% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 54 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 4.52 2.41
Recency 25 July 2011 22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 75 Watt

Tesla M2070 has a 88% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro 3000M, on the other hand, has 200% lower power consumption.

The Tesla M2070 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Tesla M2070 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Tesla M2070 Tesla M2070
vs
PRO WX 2100 Radeon PRO WX 2100
Quadro 3000M Quadro 3000M
vs
K2000M Quadro K2000M
Tesla M2070 Tesla M2070
vs
K2000D Quadro K2000D
Tesla C2075 NVIDIA Tesla C2075
vs
ATI Mobility HD 3400 Radeon HD 3400
Tesla C2090 NVIDIA Tesla C2090
vs
FX 5700 EP FX 5700 EP
Tesla C2090 NVIDIA Tesla C2090
vs
UHD Graphics 710 Mobile Graphics 710 Mobile
Tesla C2090 NVIDIA Tesla C2090
vs
RTX 3000 Ada Generation Mobile RTX 3000 Ada Generation Mobile
Tesla M2050 NVIDIA Tesla M2050
vs
RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2
Tesla M2070 NVIDIA Tesla M2070
vs
R9 280X2 R9 280X2
Tesla M2070-Q NVIDIA Tesla M2070-Q
vs
HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
Tesla M2070-Q NVIDIA Tesla M2070-Q
vs
ATI 9000 PRO Radeon 9000 PRO
Tesla X2070 NVIDIA Tesla X2070
vs
ATI HD 3300 IGP HD 3300 IGP
Tesla X2070 NVIDIA Tesla X2070
vs
Iris Plus Graphics 950 Plus Graphics 950

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

5 5 votes

Rate Tesla M2070 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 51 votes

Rate Quadro 3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Tesla M2070 or Quadro 3000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.