Tesla M2070-Q vs Quadro 4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 4000 and Tesla M2070-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Quadro 4000 outperforms Tesla M2070-Q by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 703 | 734 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.17 | 0.03 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 November 2010 (13 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,199 | $5,489 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro 4000 has 467% better value for money than Tesla M2070-Q.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 256 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 142 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.20 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 0.4864 gflops | 1.028 gflops |
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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 248 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2808 MHz | 3132 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.86 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics 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 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.83 | 3.38 |
| Recency | 2 November 2010 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 142 Watt | 225 Watt |
Quadro 4000 has a 13.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 58.5% lower power consumption.
Tesla M2070-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2070-Q in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
