Tesla C2070 vs Quadro 2000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 2000M with Tesla C2070, including specs and performance data.
C2070 outperforms 2000M by a whopping 312% 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 | 964 | 575 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.28 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.53 | 2.41 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $46.56 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 192 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4224 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 32 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 248 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 747 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 143.4 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI |
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:
| Full HD | 38
−295%
| 150−160
+295%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.23 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−309%
|
45−50
+309%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−295%
|
150−160
+295%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−295%
|
150−160
+295%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−305%
|
85−90
+305%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−309%
|
45−50
+309%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−295%
|
150−160
+295%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−305%
|
85−90
+305%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−309%
|
45−50
+309%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−295%
|
150−160
+295%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−285%
|
50−55
+285%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−289%
|
70−75
+289%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
This is how Quadro 2000M and Tesla C2070 compete in popular games:
- Tesla C2070 is 295% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.81 | 7.46 |
| Recency | 13 January 2011 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 238 Watt |
Quadro 2000M has 332.7% lower power consumption.
Tesla C2070, on the other hand, has a 312.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Tesla C2070 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Tesla C2070 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.
