Tesla M2070-Q vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 Ti with Tesla M2070-Q, including specs and performance data.
560 Ti outperforms M2070-Q by a whopping 136% 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 | 581 | 795 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.60 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 3.32 | 1.06 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 25 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $5,489 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 560 Ti has 15900% better value for money than Tesla M2070-Q.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 384 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 823 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.67 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.263 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 64 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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 | 229 mm | 248 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1002 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.3 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 mini-HDMI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 63
+163%
| 24−27
−163%
|
| Full HD | 65
+141%
| 27−30
−141%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.83
+5207%
| 203.30
−5207%
|
- GTX 560 Ti has 5207% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+160%
|
30−33
−160%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+138%
|
50−55
−138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+138%
|
24−27
−138%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+160%
|
30−33
−160%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+138%
|
24−27
−138%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+160%
|
30−33
−160%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+138%
|
24−27
−138%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+140%
|
35−40
−140%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
This is how GTX 560 Ti and Tesla M2070-Q compete in popular games:
- GTX 560 Ti is 163% faster in 900p
- GTX 560 Ti is 141% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.27 | 3.08 |
| Recency | 25 January 2011 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 225 Watt |
GTX 560 Ti has a 136% higher aggregate performance score, and 32.4% lower power consumption.
Tesla M2070-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070-Q in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 Ti is a desktop graphics 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.
