GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER vs Tesla K8
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K8 with GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4070 SUPER outperforms Tesla K8 by a whopping 710% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 469 | 11 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 18 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 67.47 |
| Power efficiency | 6.65 | 24.48 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | AD104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1536 | 7168 |
| Core clock speed | 693 MHz | 1980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 811 MHz | 2475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 35,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 220 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 103.8 | 554.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.491 TFLOPS | 35.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 80 |
| TMUs | 128 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 224 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 16-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 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 504.2 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 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
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 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 8.9 |
| 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 | 24−27
−808%
| 218
+808%
|
| 1440p | 16−18
−806%
| 145
+806%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−750%
| 85
+750%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.75 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.13 |
| 4K | no data | 7.05 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 186
+0%
|
186
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 182
+0%
|
182
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 434
+0%
|
434
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 159
+0%
|
159
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 152
+0%
|
152
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 428
+0%
|
428
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+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 | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 381
+0%
|
381
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 148
+0%
|
148
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 148
+0%
|
148
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 265
+0%
|
265
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
This is how Tesla K8 and RTX 4070 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 808% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 806% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 750% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.26 | 75.04 |
| Recency | 16 September 2014 | 8 January 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 220 Watt |
Tesla K8 has 120% lower power consumption.
RTX 4070 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 710.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K8 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla K8 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
