Tesla C2070 vs Radeon R9 290
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 290 with Tesla C2070, including specs and performance data.
R9 290 outperforms Tesla C2070 by a whopping 159% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 259 | 512 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.00 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.32 | 2.37 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Hawaii | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 November 2013 (11 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 2560 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 947 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 151.5 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.849 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 160 | 56 |
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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 248 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 747 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320.0 GB/s | 143.4 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI |
| HDMI | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark 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. 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 | 20.98 | 8.09 |
| Recency | 5 November 2013 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 238 Watt |
R9 290 has a 159.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Tesla C2070, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 15.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla C2070 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while Tesla C2070 is a workstation one.
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.
