GeForce RTX 2070 Super Max-Q vs Tesla M2070
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2070 with GeForce RTX 2070 Super Max-Q, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2070 Super Max-Q outperforms Tesla M2070 by a whopping 608% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 639 | 145 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.12 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.53 | 30.46 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 2 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,099 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 930 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1155 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 184.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.03 TFLOPS | 5.914 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 56 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 783 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 352.0 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 |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.140 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 7.5 |
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 | 14−16
−643%
| 104
+643%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−678%
| 70
+678%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−717%
| 49
+717%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 221.36 | no data |
| 1440p | 344.33 | no data |
| 4K | 516.50 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Valorant | 157
+0%
|
157
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 128
+0%
|
128
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Valorant | 136
+0%
|
136
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
This is how Tesla M2070 and RTX 2070 Super Max-Q compete in popular games:
- RTX 2070 Super Max-Q is 643% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2070 Super Max-Q is 678% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2070 Super Max-Q is 717% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.87 | 34.50 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 2 April 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 80 Watt |
RTX 2070 Super Max-Q has a 608.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 181.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2070 Super Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2070 is a workstation card while GeForce RTX 2070 Super Max-Q is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
