Tesla M2070 vs Quadro 4000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 4000M with Tesla M2070, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 4000M
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
3.37

Tesla M2070 outperforms Quadro 4000M by a considerable 45% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking733635
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.340.11
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameFermiGF100
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date22 February 2011 (13 years ago)25 July 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 $3,099

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 4000M has 209% better value for money than Tesla M2070.

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 cores336448
Core clock speed475 MHz574 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate26.6032.14
Floating-point performance0.6384 gflops1.03 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).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data248 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1200 MHz3132 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s150.3 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.12.0

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−42.1%
27−30
+42.1%
Hitman 3 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−25%
30−33
+25%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−37.5%
55−60
+37.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−42.1%
27−30
+42.1%
Hitman 3 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−25%
30−33
+25%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−40%
21−24
+40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−37.5%
55−60
+37.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−42.1%
27−30
+42.1%
Hitman 3 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−25%
30−33
+25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−40%
21−24
+40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−37.5%
55−60
+37.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
−35%
27−30
+35%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.37 4.88
Recency 22 February 2011 25 July 2011
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 225 Watt

Quadro 4000M has 125% lower power consumption.

Tesla M2070, on the other hand, has a 44.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Tesla M2070 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation card while Tesla M2070 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro 4000M
Quadro 4000M
NVIDIA Tesla M2070
Tesla M2070

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 33 votes

Rate Quadro 4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 5 votes

Rate Tesla M2070 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.