Tesla C2075 vs Quadro M4000M

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

M4000M
16.06
+85%

Quadro M4000M outperforms Tesla C2075 by 85% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking307456
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money3.350.35
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM204GF110
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date2 October 2015 (8 years old)25 July 2011 (12 years old)
Current price$832 $2237
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M4000M has 857% better value for money than Tesla C2075.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1,280448
Core clock speed975 MHz574 MHz
Boost clock speed1013 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,200 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt247 Watt
Texture fill rate78.0032.14
Floating-point performance2,496 gflops1,030.4 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro M4000M and Tesla C2075 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data248 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

Memory

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed5012 MHz3132 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s150.3 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

Video outputs and ports

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI
Display Port1.2no data

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+no data
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API support

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.05.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA5.22.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

M4000M 16.06
+85%
Tesla C2075 8.68

Quadro M4000M outperforms Tesla C2075 by 85% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

M4000M 6225
+85%
Tesla C2075 3364

Quadro M4000M outperforms Tesla C2075 by 85% in Passmark.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

M4000M 53
+29.3%
Tesla C2075 41

Quadro M4000M outperforms Tesla C2075 by 29% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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 HD63
+110%
30−35
−110%
4K20
+100%
10−12
−100%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+88.9%
18−20
−88.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+100%
14−16
−100%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+104%
27−30
−104%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+100%
21−24
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+100%
21−24
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+110%
21−24
−110%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+90%
30−33
−90%
Hitman 3 45−50
+87.5%
24−27
−87.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+88.9%
18−20
−88.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+88.9%
18−20
−88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+93.8%
16−18
−93.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+88.9%
18−20
−88.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+100%
14−16
−100%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+104%
27−30
−104%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+100%
21−24
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+100%
21−24
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+110%
21−24
−110%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+90%
30−33
−90%
Hitman 3 45−50
+87.5%
24−27
−87.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+88.9%
18−20
−88.9%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+88.9%
18−20
−88.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+88.9%
18−20
−88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+93.8%
16−18
−93.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+88.9%
18−20
−88.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+100%
14−16
−100%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+104%
27−30
−104%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+100%
21−24
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+110%
21−24
−110%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+90%
30−33
−90%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+88.9%
18−20
−88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+93.8%
16−18
−93.8%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Hitman 3 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+94.4%
18−20
−94.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+87.5%
16−18
−87.5%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+100%
16−18
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Hitman 3 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%

This is how M4000M and Tesla C2075 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • M4000M is 110% faster than Tesla C2075

4K resolution:

  • M4000M is 100% faster than Tesla C2075

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 16.06 8.68
Recency 2 October 2015 25 July 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 247 Watt

The Quadro M4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2075 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation card while Tesla C2075 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
Quadro M4000M
NVIDIA Tesla C2075
Tesla C2075

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 116 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro M4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 24 votes

Rate NVIDIA Tesla C2075 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.