NVIDIA Quadro M2000M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is close but decisive. The Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 points against the Tesla C2070's 9,716 points, a 3.5% advantage. That is a narrow margin, but it is consistent with the position of each card in the broader GPU landscape. Both sit at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they are statistically mid-pack performers, yet the M2000M edges ahead in raw compute throughput.

Looking at the rivals list for each card reinforces the picture. The Quadro M2000M's average benchmark score is 9,832, which places it 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803). It also beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 by 0.5% (9,780) and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 by 1.1% (9,724). The Tesla C2070, with an average score of 9,716, is 0.1% behind the Tesla M10 (9,724) and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665). It trails the GeForce GTX 1070 by 0.7% (9,780) and sits 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653). The data shows that the M2000M is not just faster than the C2070; it is faster than every card that surrounds the C2070 in the rankings.

The win count is equally one-sided. The head-to-head results give the Quadro M2000M one win and the Tesla C2070 zero wins. There is no benchmark in the data where the C2070 comes out ahead. That is not a matter of one card being optimized for a particular workload; the only measured test points in the same direction. The 3.5% delta in OpenCL is small enough that real-world differences might vary, but from a pure benchmark perspective, the M2000M is the faster card.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, with an average benchmark score of 9,832, compared to the NVIDIA Tesla C2070's 9,716. That is a 116-point gap, or roughly 1.2%.

Q: How do these cards compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070?

A: The Quadro M2000M is 0.5% ahead of the GTX 1070 (9,780), while the Tesla C2070 is 0.7% behind it. The GTX 1070 sits between the two in raw performance.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The C2070 has 50% more memory capacity and 79% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, while the Tesla C2070 has 448. The M2000M also has 40 texture mapping units versus 56 on the C2070, but the C2070 has 48 ROPs against the M2000M's 16.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro M2000M has a 55 W TDP and uses an MXM module slot with no power connectors. The Tesla C2070 has a 238 W TDP, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro M2000M also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla C2070 has no Vulkan support listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most buyers. The Quadro M2000M wins the only shared benchmark, holds a higher average score, and does so while consuming a fraction of the power. The 3.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is not transformative, but the M2000M also matches the C2070's 47th percentile ranking, so you are not giving up any standing in the overall GPU hierarchy.

For compute workloads, the Tesla C2070 offers more memory and substantially higher bandwidth. The 6 GB frame buffer and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth are meaningful for large datasets. The M2000M's 4 GB and 80.19 GB/s will hit limits sooner in memory-bound tasks. However, the C2070's FP32 throughput is 1,027.7 GFLOPS against the M2000M's 1,455.4 GFLOPS, so the M2000M is still faster in raw math despite the memory deficit.

The power draw is the biggest practical divider. The M2000M's 55 W TDP means it can run in mobile workstations or compact MXM systems. The C2070's 238 W TDP and dual-slot cooler demand a desktop chassis with substantial power delivery. If you are building a system around either card, the M2000M is far easier to integrate. The C2070's PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is also dated versus the M2000M's MXM-A (3.0) bus, though both are end-of-life products.

Choose the Quadro M2000M if you want the better benchmark performer in a low-power package. Choose the Tesla C2070 if memory capacity and bandwidth are non-negotiable and you can accommodate its power and cooling needs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The Quadro M2000M uses a 28 nm process and the GM107 chip, while the Tesla C2070 uses a 40 nm process and the GF100 chip. The M2000M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The C2070 has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, with a density of 5.9M / mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly. The M2000M has a base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The C2070 lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). Memory configurations are also distinct: 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus versus 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s against 143.4 GB/s.

Compute resources are split. The M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Pixel rates are close: 18.19 GPixel/s for the M2000M versus 16.07 GPixel/s for the C2070. Texture rates favor the M2000M at 45.48 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,455.4 GFLOPS for the M2000M and 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the C2070.

Physical and power specs are entirely different. The M2000M is an MXM module with no power connectors and a 55 W TDP. The C2070 is a dual-slot card, 248 mm (9.8 inches) long, with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors and a 238 W TDP. The M2000M uses a portable-device-dependent display output, while the C2070 has 1x DVI. The bus interface is MXM-A (3.0) for the M2000M and PCIe 2.0 x16 for the C2070. The C2070 lists a suggested PSU of 550 W; the M2000M lists none.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The Quadro M2000M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, which is designed for efficiency and higher clock speeds. The Tesla C2070 is based on the older Fermi architecture, which prioritized compute density at the cost of power consumption. The 28 nm process on the M2000M versus 40 nm on the C2070 explains much of the efficiency difference: the M2000M delivers 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter against the C2070's 5.9 million.

The chip designs reflect different priorities. The GM107 in the M2000M is a smaller, denser chip at 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors. The GF100 in the C2070 is a massive 529 mm² die with 3,100 million transistors. Despite having fewer transistors per area, the GF100 packs more ROPs (48 versus 16) and more TMUs (56 versus 40). The M2000M compensates with more shading units (640 versus 448) and a significantly higher FP32 throughput.

Feature support diverges on API compatibility. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The M2000M adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the C2070 lists no Vulkan capability. That makes the M2000M more future-proof for modern graphics workloads, though both are end-of-life products. The M2000M is from the Quadro Maxwell-M generation (Mx000M), while the C2070 is from the Tesla Fermi generation (x20xx), which explains the design philosophy shift from compute-heavy Fermi to efficiency-focused Maxwell.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M2000M wins in benchmark performance. It takes the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, by 3.5%. It also holds a higher average score across all benchmarks (9,832 versus 9,716) and a higher FP32 compute rate (1,455.4 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS). For general compute and graphics tasks measured by OpenCL, the M2000M is the stronger card.

The M2000M also wins on efficiency and integration. Its 55 W TDP and MXM module form factor make it suitable for mobile workstations or compact systems. The lack of power connectors simplifies installation. The modern Maxwell architecture provides Vulkan support and a smaller die, which contributes to its higher transistor density and lower power draw.

The Tesla C2070 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 6 GB frame buffer is 50% larger than the M2000M's 4 GB, and its 143.4 GB/s bandwidth is 79% higher. For workloads that load large textures or datasets into VRAM, the C2070 will hit memory limits later. The 384-bit bus and 48 ROPs also make the C2070 better suited to fill-rate-bound tasks, despite its lower texture rate.

The C2070 also wins on raw memory throughput per watt, but that is a narrow distinction. The practical takeaway is that the M2000M is the better all-round performer, while the C2070 is a specialist for memory-heavy compute. If your work is bound by VRAM capacity or bandwidth, the C2070's 6 GB and 143.4 GB/s are compelling. If you need balanced performance and low power, the M2000M is the data-driven choice.