Tesla M2070-Q vs GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 Ti with Tesla M2070-Q, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1080 Ti outperforms Tesla M2070-Q by a whopping 1323% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 75 | 744 |
| Place by popularity | 36 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 20.21 | 0.03 |
| Power efficiency | 13.25 | 1.03 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 10 March 2017 (7 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $5,489 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1080 Ti has 67267% better value for money than Tesla M2070-Q.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3584 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1481 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1582 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 91 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 354.4 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 11.34 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 88 | 48 |
| TMUs | 224 | 56 |
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 | 267 mm | 248 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 600 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 11 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 352 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1376 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 484.4 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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
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.
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 | 129
+1333%
| 9−10
−1333%
|
| 1440p | 84
+1580%
| 5−6
−1580%
|
| 4K | 68
+1600%
| 4−5
−1600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.42
+11155%
| 609.89
−11155%
|
| 1440p | 8.32
+13092%
| 1097.80
−13092%
|
| 4K | 10.28
+13249%
| 1372.25
−13249%
|
- GTX 1080 Ti has 11155% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Ti has 13092% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Ti has 13249% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 130−140
+1422%
|
9−10
−1422%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+1444%
|
16−18
−1444%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| Atomic Heart | 130−140
+1422%
|
9−10
−1422%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 166
+1560%
|
10−11
−1560%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+1444%
|
16−18
−1444%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120
+1400%
|
8−9
−1400%
|
| Fortnite | 190−200
+1492%
|
12−14
−1492%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+1370%
|
10−11
−1370%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+1422%
|
9−10
−1422%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 125
+1463%
|
8−9
−1463%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+1469%
|
16−18
−1469%
|
| Atomic Heart | 130−140
+1422%
|
9−10
−1422%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 154
+1440%
|
10−11
−1440%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+1444%
|
16−18
−1444%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+1444%
|
18−20
−1444%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| Dota 2 | 133
+1378%
|
9−10
−1378%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 117
+1363%
|
8−9
−1363%
|
| Fortnite | 203
+1350%
|
14−16
−1350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145
+1350%
|
10−11
−1350%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+1422%
|
9−10
−1422%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120
+1400%
|
8−9
−1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+1400%
|
6−7
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 115
+1338%
|
8−9
−1338%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170
+1550%
|
10−11
−1550%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+1469%
|
16−18
−1469%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 149
+1390%
|
10−11
−1390%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+1463%
|
8−9
−1463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+1457%
|
7−8
−1457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120
+1400%
|
8−9
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 102
+1357%
|
7−8
−1357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+1533%
|
6−7
−1533%
|
| Valorant | 179
+1392%
|
12−14
−1392%
|
| Fortnite | 163
+1530%
|
10−11
−1530%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+1413%
|
8−9
−1413%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+1381%
|
21−24
−1381%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84
+1580%
|
5−6
−1580%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+1767%
|
3−4
−1767%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1358%
|
12−14
−1358%
|
| Valorant | 280−290
+1456%
|
18−20
−1456%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 118
+1375%
|
8−9
−1375%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97
+1517%
|
6−7
−1517%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102
+1357%
|
7−8
−1357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85−90
+1367%
|
6−7
−1367%
|
| Fortnite | 107
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 98
+1533%
|
6−7
−1533%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+1340%
|
5−6
−1340%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+1389%
|
18−20
−1389%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70
+1650%
|
4−5
−1650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+1463%
|
8−9
−1463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75
+1400%
|
5−6
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Fortnite | 51
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
This is how GTX 1080 Ti and Tesla M2070-Q compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 Ti is 1333% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Ti is 1580% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Ti is 1600% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 41.56 | 2.92 |
| Recency | 10 March 2017 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 11 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
GTX 1080 Ti has a 1323.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 83.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
Tesla M2070-Q, on the other hand, has 11.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070-Q in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is a desktop card while Tesla M2070-Q 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.
