GeForce RTX 4090 vs Tesla M2070
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2070 with GeForce RTX 4090, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4090 outperforms Tesla M2070 by a whopping 1896% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 637 | 1 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 6 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.13 | 18.83 |
| Power efficiency | 1.53 | 15.33 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | AD102 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 20 September 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,099 | $1,599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 4090 has 14385% better value for money than Tesla M2070.
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 | 16384 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 2235 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2520 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 450 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 1,290 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.03 TFLOPS | 82.58 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 176 |
| TMUs | 56 | 512 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 512 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 128 |
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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 304 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 16-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 783 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 1.01 TB/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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API 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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 8.9 |
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 | 12−14
−2050%
| 258
+2050%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−2100%
| 198
+2100%
|
| 4K | 7−8
−1929%
| 142
+1929%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 258.25
−4067%
| 6.20
+4067%
|
| 1440p | 344.33
−4164%
| 8.08
+4164%
|
| 4K | 442.71
−3832%
| 11.26
+3832%
|
- RTX 4090 has 4067% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 4090 has 4164% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 4090 has 3832% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 212
+0%
|
212
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 225
+0%
|
225
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 215
+0%
|
215
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 111
+0%
|
111
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 555
+0%
|
555
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 309
+0%
|
309
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 178
+0%
|
178
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 826
+0%
|
826
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 199
+0%
|
199
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 200
+0%
|
200
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 149
+0%
|
149
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 548
+0%
|
548
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 329
+0%
|
329
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 174
+0%
|
174
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 183
+0%
|
183
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 750−800
+0%
|
750−800
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 189
+0%
|
189
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 224
+0%
|
224
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 544
+0%
|
544
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 279
+0%
|
279
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 680
+0%
|
680
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 507
+0%
|
507
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 239
+0%
|
239
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 152
+0%
|
152
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 262
+0%
|
262
+0%
|
| Valorant | 572
+0%
|
572
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 187
+0%
|
187
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 187
+0%
|
187
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 137
+0%
|
137
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 187
+0%
|
187
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 227
+0%
|
227
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 284
+0%
|
284
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
| Valorant | 364
+0%
|
364
+0%
|
This is how Tesla M2070 and RTX 4090 compete in popular games:
- RTX 4090 is 2050% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4090 is 2100% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4090 is 1929% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.01 | 100.00 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 20 September 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 450 Watt |
Tesla M2070 has 100% lower power consumption.
RTX 4090, on the other hand, has a 1896% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4090 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2070 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 4090 is a desktop 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.
