Tesla M2070 vs GeForce MX450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX450 with Tesla M2070, including specs and performance data.
MX450 outperforms Tesla M2070 by an impressive 95% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 469 | 644 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.12 |
| Power efficiency | 26.71 | 1.52 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 896 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1395 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1575 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP) | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 100.8 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.226 TFLOPS | 1.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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 4.0 x4 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 248 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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, GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10000 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.03 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
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 | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 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 | 29
+107%
| 14−16
−107%
|
| 1440p | 17
+113%
| 8−9
−113%
|
| 4K | 25
+108%
| 12−14
−108%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 221.36 |
| 1440p | no data | 387.38 |
| 4K | no data | 258.25 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88
+95.6%
|
45−50
−95.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 49
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
+123%
|
30−33
−123%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 22
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 34
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| Fortnite | 61
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+97.8%
|
45−50
−97.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+98.6%
|
70−75
−98.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Dota 2 | 88
+95.6%
|
45−50
−95.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 29
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Fortnite | 39
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 26
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 38
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+97.8%
|
45−50
−97.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 81
+103%
|
40−45
−103%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+97.8%
|
45−50
−97.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+100%
|
35−40
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+104%
|
50−55
−104%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+100%
|
24−27
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 32
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
This is how GeForce MX450 and Tesla M2070 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX450 is 107% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX450 is 113% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX450 is 108% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.39 | 4.30 |
| Recency | 1 August 2020 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 225 Watt |
GeForce MX450 has a 95.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 800% lower power consumption.
Tesla M2070, on the other hand, has a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce MX450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX450 is a notebook 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.
