Radeon RX 7700 XT vs Tesla M2070
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2070 with Radeon RX 7700 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 7700 XT outperforms Tesla M2070 by a whopping 1097% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 638 | 39 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.12 | 70.44 |
| Power efficiency | 1.50 | 16.44 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 25 August 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,099 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 7700 XT has 58600% 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 | 3456 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 1435 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2544 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 245 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 549.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.03 TFLOPS | 35.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 96 |
| TMUs | 56 | 216 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 54 |
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 | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 783 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 432.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C |
| 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 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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 | 14−16
−1243%
| 188
+1243%
|
| 1440p | 8−9
−1188%
| 103
+1188%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−1100%
| 60
+1100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 221.36
−9168%
| 2.39
+9168%
|
| 1440p | 387.38
−8786%
| 4.36
+8786%
|
| 4K | 619.80
−8182%
| 7.48
+8182%
|
- RX 7700 XT has 9168% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 7700 XT has 8786% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 7700 XT has 8182% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 176
+0%
|
176
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 193
+0%
|
193
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 192
+0%
|
192
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 398
+0%
|
398
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 157
+0%
|
157
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 334
+0%
|
334
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+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 | 110
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 287
+0%
|
287
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 193
+0%
|
193
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120
+0%
|
120
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
This is how Tesla M2070 and RX 7700 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 7700 XT is 1243% faster in 1080p
- RX 7700 XT is 1188% faster in 1440p
- RX 7700 XT is 1100% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 61 test (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.89 | 58.51 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 25 August 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 245 Watt |
Tesla M2070 has 8.9% lower power consumption.
RX 7700 XT, on the other hand, has a 1096.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2070 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 7700 XT 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.
