FirePro M4000 vs Tesla M2070 Q
If you are going to buy a new graphics card and are choosing between FirePro M4000 and Tesla M2070 Q, there are a couple of things to consider. Cards with more VRAM in general perform better and allow you to play on higher graphics settings. Size also makes a difference. A model with a large heatsink can occupy up to three expansion slots on a motherboard. Be sure you have enough room in your PC case. When comparing GPUs with different architectures, more processing cores and even higher TFLOPS will not always translate to better performance. To help you decide which GPU you need, we have measured frame rates in a number of popular games. For more on how the FirePro M4000 stacks up against Tesla M2070 Q, check out specs charts below.
Tesla M2070 Q
FirePro M4000 is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: FirePro M4000 is only used in laptop graphics. It has lower GPU clock speed compared to the desktop variant, which results in lower power consumption, but also 10-30% lower gaming performance. Check available laptop models with FirePro M4000 here:
Main Specs
| FirePro M4000 | Tesla M2070 Q | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Check Price |
- Tesla M2070 Q has 581% more power consumption, than FirePro M4000.
- FirePro M4000 is connected by MXM-A (3.0), and Tesla M2070 Q uses PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.
- Tesla M2070 Q has 5 GB more memory, than FirePro M4000.
- FirePro M4000 is used in Mobile workstations, and Tesla M2070 Q - in Desktops.
- FirePro M4000 is build with GCN architecture, and Tesla M2070 Q - with Fermi.
- Core clock speed of FirePro M4000 is 26 MHz higher, than Tesla M2070 Q.
- FirePro M4000 is manufactured by 28 nm process technology, and Tesla M2070 Q - by 40 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of FirePro M4000 is 1368 MHz higher, than Tesla M2070 Q.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 7−8 | 3−4 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 1−2 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 18−20 | 14−16 |
| medium / 1080p | 9−10 | 6−7 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 66% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| high / 1080p | 12−14 | 8−9 |
| ultra / 1080p | 10−12 | 6−7 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 21−24 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 9−10 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Battlefield 5 is 45% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| high / 1080p | 45−50 | 40−45 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Call of Duty: Warzone is 4% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| low / 768p | 140−150 | 120−130 |
| medium / 768p | 120−130 | 100−110 |
| ultra / 1080p | 55−60 | 50−55 |
| QHD / 1440p | 30−35 | 24−27 |
| 4K / 2160p | 27−30 | − |
| high / 768p | 90−95 | 75−80 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 16% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| low / 768p | 55−60 | 70−75 |
| ultra / 1080p | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| medium / 1080p | 45−50 | 40−45 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla M2070 Q in Cyberpunk 2077 is 7% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 75−80 |
| medium / 768p | 65−70 | 55−60 |
| ultra / 1080p | 35−40 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Dota 2 is 16% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| high / 1080p | 9−10 | 4−5 |
| ultra / 1080p | 8−9 | 4−5 |
| 4K / 2160p | 4−5 | 1−2 |
| low / 720p | 21−24 | 14−16 |
| medium / 1080p | 10−11 | 6−7 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Far Cry 5 is 83% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| high / 1080p | 16−18 | 12−14 |
| ultra / 1080p | 10−12 | 7−8 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 65−70 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 27−30 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Fortnite is 24% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| high / 1080p | 14−16 | 8−9 |
| ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 7−8 |
| QHD / 1440p | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 21−24 |
| medium / 1080p | 16−18 | 10−11 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Forza Horizon 4 is 50% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| low / 768p | 55−60 | 50−55 |
| medium / 768p | 50−55 | − |
| high / 1080p | 14−16 | 10−11 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 4−5 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| medium / 720p | − | 40−45 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Grand Theft Auto V is 18% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| high / 1080p | 5−6 | 2−3 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 9−10 |
| medium / 1080p | 7−8 | 4−5 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Metro Exodus is 80% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| low / 768p | 95−100 | 85−90 |
| high / 1080p | 90−95 | 70−75 |
| ultra / 1080p | 80−85 | − |
| medium / 1080p | 95−100 | − |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Minecraft is 18% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| high / 1080p | 16−18 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 12−14 |
| low / 720p | 35−40 | 30−35 |
| medium / 1080p | 18−20 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 15% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 7−8 |
| ultra / 1080p | 8−9 | 4−5 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 8−9 |
| medium / 1080p | 10−12 | 8−9 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 57% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| low / 768p | 27−30 | 20−22 |
| medium / 768p | 18−20 | 12−14 |
| high / 1080p | 10−11 | 7−8 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 5−6 |
| 4K / 2160p | 6−7 | 1−2 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 55% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 75−80 |
| medium / 768p | 45−50 | 40−45 |
| ultra / 1080p | 21−24 | 18−20 |
| high / 768p | 35−40 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of FirePro M4000 in World of Tanks is 14% more, than Tesla M2070 Q. | ||
Full Specs
| FirePro M4000 | Tesla M2070 Q | |
| Architecture | GCN | Fermi |
| Code name | Cape Verde GLM | GF100 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 | 25 July 2011 |
| Pipelines | 512 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Transistor count | 1,500 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops | 1,027.7 gflops |
| Length | 248 mm | |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | 3132 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | |
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.0 | |
| Bus support | n/a | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 79 Mh/s | 94 Mh/s |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Form factor | MXM-A | |
| StereoOutput3D | + | |
| Check Price |