Tesla M2070 vs Quadro K4100M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K4100M with Tesla M2070, including specs and performance data.
K4100M outperforms Tesla M2070 by a considerable 45% 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 | 594 | 682 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.21 | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 5.03 | 1.54 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | $3,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
K4100M has 320% better value for money than Tesla M2070.
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 | 1152 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 67.78 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.627 TFLOPS | 1.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 96 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 248 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 150.3 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 | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 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 | 48
+60%
| 30−35
−60%
|
| 4K | 13
+62.5%
| 8−9
−62.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 31.23
+231%
| 103.30
−231%
|
| 4K | 115.31
+236%
| 387.38
−236%
|
- K4100M has 231% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- K4100M has 236% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| God of War | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| God of War | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+46%
|
50−55
−46%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+55.7%
|
70−75
−55.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+51.4%
|
35−40
−51.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| God of War | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+46%
|
50−55
−46%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+51.4%
|
35−40
−51.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| God of War | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+46%
|
50−55
−46%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+45.7%
|
35−40
−45.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+48.1%
|
27−30
−48.1%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
This is how K4100M and Tesla M2070 compete in popular games:
- K4100M is 60% faster in 1080p
- K4100M is 63% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.59 | 4.53 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 225 Watt |
K4100M has a 45.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 125% lower power consumption.
Tesla M2070, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro K4100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K4100M is a mobile workstation graphics 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.
