Tesla M2070 vs Radeon 860M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 860M with Tesla M2070, including specs and performance data.
860M outperforms M2070 by a whopping 156% 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 | 449 | 697 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 59.09 | 1.54 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Krackan Point | GF100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | March 2025 (recently) | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,099 |
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 | 512 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 34,000 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 96.00 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.072 TFLOPS | 1.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 48 |
| TMUs | 32 | 56 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 64 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 783 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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 | 30
+200%
| 10−12
−200%
|
| 1440p | 18
+157%
| 7−8
−157%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 309.90 |
| 1440p | no data | 442.71 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+171%
|
24−27
−171%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+171%
|
24−27
−171%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+188%
|
24−27
−188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+163%
|
40−45
−163%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+171%
|
24−27
−171%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+160%
|
65−70
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+188%
|
24−27
−188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 42
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+163%
|
40−45
−163%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+188%
|
24−27
−188%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+197%
|
30−33
−197%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+180%
|
45−50
−180%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+163%
|
24−27
−163%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
This is how Radeon 860M and Tesla M2070 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 860M is 200% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 860M is 157% faster in 1440p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.54 | 4.51 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 225 Watt |
Radeon 860M has a 155.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 1400% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 860M is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 860M is a notebook 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.
