NVIDIA Quadro M2000M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and NVIDIA Tesla C2070 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 4 month(s) later
• Around 79% higher core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 575 MHz
• Around 36% higher texture fill rate: 43.92 GTexel / s vs 32.2 GTexel / s
• Around 43% higher pipelines: 640 vs 448
• Around 36% better floating-point performance: 1,405 gflops vs 1,030.4 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• 4.3x lower typical power consumption: 55 Watt vs 238 Watt
• Around 67% higher memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 3000 MHz
• Around 22% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3466 vs 2840
• Around 80% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 47.281 vs 26.223
• Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.5 vs 3.015
• Around 17% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.048 vs 43.519
• Around 83% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 171.268 vs 93.344
• Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4920 vs 3245
• Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4920 vs 3245

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Tesla C2070

• Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 6 GB vs 4 GB
• Around 39% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 471 vs 340
• Around 19% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 9716 vs 8148
• Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 908.754 vs 782.113

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Tesla C2070

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3466 2840
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	340 471
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	8148 9716
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	47.281 26.223
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	782.113 908.754
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.5 3.015
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	51.048 43.519
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	171.268 93.344
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4920 3245
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 3710
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3355 3351
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4920 3245
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 3710
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3355 3351

Compare specifications (specs)