Tesla M2070-Q vs Quadro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2000 and Tesla M2070-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M2000 outperforms M2070-Q by a whopping 208% 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 | 490 | 796 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.58 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 9.87 | 1.07 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | $5,489 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro M2000 has 15700% 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 | 768 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.82 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.786 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 48 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 288 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 201 mm | 248 mm |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 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 | 128 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 106 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 | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 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 | 5.2 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.62 | 3.12 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
Quadro M2000 has a 208.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
Tesla M2070-Q, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070-Q in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
