Quadro K2000M vs Tesla M2070-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2070-Q with Quadro K2000M, including specs and performance data.
Tesla M2070-Q outperforms K2000M by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 742 | 826 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | 0.39 |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | 3.29 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,489 | $265.27 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
K2000M has 1200% better value for money than Tesla M2070-Q.
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 | 448 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 23.84 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.028 TFLOPS | 0.5722 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 32 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 783 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | 2.0 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 30−35
+25%
| 24
−25%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 182.97
−1555%
| 11.05
+1555%
|
- K2000M has 1555% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how Tesla M2070-Q and K2000M compete in popular games:
- Tesla M2070-Q is 25% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.29 | 2.54 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 1 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 55 Watt |
Tesla M2070-Q has a 29.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
K2000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 months, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 309.1% lower power consumption.
The Tesla M2070-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2070-Q is a workstation card while Quadro K2000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
