GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile vs Tesla M2070
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2070 with GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5070 Mobile outperforms Tesla M2070 by a whopping 964% 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 | 676 | 69 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.54 | 73.96 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GB206 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) | April 2025 (recently) |
| 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.
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 | 448 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 907 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1425 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 21,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 205.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.03 TFLOPS | 13.13 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 48 |
| TMUs | 56 | 144 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 144 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 36 |
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 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 783 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 10−12
−1060%
| 116
+1060%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−1100%
| 72
+1100%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−1133%
| 37
+1133%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 309.90 | no data |
| 1440p | 516.50 | no data |
| 4K | 1033.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 222
+0%
|
222
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
This is how Tesla M2070 and RTX 5070 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 5070 Mobile is 1060% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5070 Mobile is 1100% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5070 Mobile is 1133% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.56 | 48.54 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | on April 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 50 Watt |
RTX 5070 Mobile has a 964.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 700% more advanced lithography process, and 350% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile 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 5070 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
