GMA 3000 vs Tesla M2070

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking629not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency1.50no data
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameGF100Broadwater
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date25 July 2011 (13 years ago)1 June 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,099 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores448no data
Core clock speed574 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate32.141.600
Floating-point processing power1.03 TFLOPSno data
ROPs484
TMUs564

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount6 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed783 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth150.3 GB/sno data

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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)9.0c
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.0-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 25 July 2011 1 June 2006
Chip lithography 40 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 13 Watt

Tesla M2070 has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3000, on the other hand, has 1630.8% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Tesla M2070 and GMA 3000. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Tesla M2070 is a workstation graphics card while GMA 3000 is a desktop 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 Tesla M2070
Tesla M2070
Intel GMA 3000
GMA 3000

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.


5 5 votes

Rate Tesla M2070 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 45 votes

Rate GMA 3000 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.