Tesla M2070 vs GeForce GTX 980
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 with Tesla M2070, including specs and performance data.
GTX 980 outperforms Tesla M2070 by a whopping 478% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 200 | 638 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.91 | 0.13 |
| Power efficiency | 12.06 | 1.53 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 19 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $3,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 980 has 8292% better value for money than Tesla M2070.
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 | 2048 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 155.6 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.981 TFLOPS | 1.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 248 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 783 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
API 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 | 1.1.126 | 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:
| Full HD | 92
+557%
| 14−16
−557%
|
| 1440p | 50
+525%
| 8−9
−525%
|
| 4K | 40
+567%
| 6−7
−567%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.97
+3609%
| 221.36
−3609%
|
| 1440p | 10.98
+3428%
| 387.38
−3428%
|
| 4K | 13.73
+3663%
| 516.50
−3663%
|
- GTX 980 has 3609% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 980 has 3428% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 980 has 3663% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+511%
|
9−10
−511%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+500%
|
10−11
−500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+525%
|
12−14
−525%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+511%
|
9−10
−511%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+500%
|
10−11
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+524%
|
21−24
−524%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+533%
|
12−14
−533%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+517%
|
12−14
−517%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+510%
|
10−11
−510%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+539%
|
18−20
−539%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 77
+542%
|
12−14
−542%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+511%
|
9−10
−511%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+500%
|
10−11
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+500%
|
8−9
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+493%
|
14−16
−493%
|
| Fortnite | 105
+483%
|
18−20
−483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+524%
|
21−24
−524%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+533%
|
12−14
−533%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72
+500%
|
12−14
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+517%
|
12−14
−517%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 194
+547%
|
30−33
−547%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+510%
|
10−11
−510%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 67
+570%
|
10−11
−570%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+539%
|
18−20
−539%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+502%
|
45−50
−502%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 67
+570%
|
10−11
−570%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+511%
|
9−10
−511%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+500%
|
10−11
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+506%
|
16−18
−506%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+493%
|
14−16
−493%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+524%
|
21−24
−524%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+533%
|
12−14
−533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 69
+590%
|
10−11
−590%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+539%
|
18−20
−539%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+525%
|
8−9
−525%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+538%
|
8−9
−538%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+483%
|
30−33
−483%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
+527%
|
30−33
−527%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+529%
|
14−16
−529%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+558%
|
12−14
−558%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+550%
|
10−11
−550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+479%
|
14−16
−479%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 59
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70
+483%
|
12−14
−483%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 59
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+478%
|
9−10
−478%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| Fortnite | 30
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+567%
|
6−7
−567%
|
This is how GTX 980 and Tesla M2070 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 is 557% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 is 525% faster in 1440p
- GTX 980 is 567% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.54 | 4.94 |
| Recency | 19 September 2014 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 225 Watt |
GTX 980 has a 477.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 36.4% lower power consumption.
Tesla M2070, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 980 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 is a desktop card while Tesla M2070 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
