GeForce 840M vs Tesla C2070
When choosing between GeForce 840M and Tesla C2070, it is worth examining the specifications of the models in detail. Do they meet the recommended requirements of modern games and software? Storage capacity, form factor, TDP, available ports, warranty and manufacturer support are all important. For example, the size of a PC case can limit the maximum thickness and length of the card. Often, instead of the factory overclocked card and RGB backlight, it is better to choose a reference model with a more efficient GPU. And make sure that your current power supply unit has the correct connection pins (using adapters is not recommended). This GPUs compare tool is meant to help you to choose the best graphics card for your build. Let's find out the difference between GeForce 840M and Tesla C2070.
Tesla C2070
GeForce 840M is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: GeForce 840M 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 GeForce 840M here:
Main Specs
| GeForce 840M | Tesla C2070 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI |
| Check Price |
- Tesla C2070 has 621% more power consumption, than GeForce 840M.
- GeForce 840M is connected by PCIe 3.0 x8, and Tesla C2070 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.
- Tesla C2070 has 2 GB more memory, than GeForce 840M.
- GeForce 840M is used in Laptops, and Tesla C2070 - in Desktops.
- GeForce 840M is build with Maxwell architecture, and Tesla C2070 - with Fermi.
- Core clock speed of GeForce 840M is 455 MHz higher, than Tesla C2070.
- GeForce 840M is manufactured by 28 nm process technology, and Tesla C2070 - by 40 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of Tesla C2070 is 988 MHz higher, than GeForce 840M.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 1−2 | 16−18 |
| ultra / 1080p | 0−1 | 9−10 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 30−35 |
| medium / 1080p | 3−4 | 21−24 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 300% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 5−6 |
| low / 720p | 16−18 | 55−60 |
| medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 30−33 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Battlefield 5 is 311% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | 40−45 | 45−50 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Call of Duty: Warzone is 11% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 210−220 |
| medium / 768p | 90−95 | 180−190 |
| ultra / 1080p | 40−45 | 100−110 |
| QHD / 1440p | 24−27 | 60−65 |
| 4K / 2160p | 18−20 | 30−35 |
| high / 768p | 65−70 | 150−160 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 101% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 10% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 110−120 |
| medium / 768p | 50−55 | 100−110 |
| ultra / 1080p | 24−27 | 70−75 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Dota 2 is 90% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 2−3 | 20−22 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 18−20 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 18−20 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 3−4 | 21−24 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Far Cry 5 is 420% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 10−11 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 2−3 | 12−14 |
| low / 720p | 50−55 | 100−110 |
| medium / 1080p | 10−12 | 60−65 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Fortnite is 187% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 4−5 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| low / 720p | 16−18 | 55−60 |
| medium / 1080p | 7−8 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Forza Horizon 4 is 333% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | − | 80−85 |
| high / 1080p | 5−6 | 30−35 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 12−14 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| medium / 720p | 35−40 | − |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Grand Theft Auto V is 155% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 1−2 | 10−11 |
| ultra / 1080p | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| low / 720p | 5−6 | 30−35 |
| medium / 1080p | 3−4 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Metro Exodus is 533% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| low / 768p | 90−95 | 110−120 |
| high / 1080p | 85−90 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 70−75 | − |
| medium / 1080p | 90−95 | 110−120 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Minecraft is 25% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 77% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 12−14 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 9−10 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 6−7 | 30−35 |
| medium / 1080p | − | 16−18 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 320% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| low / 768p | 12−14 | 60−65 |
| medium / 768p | 9−10 | 35−40 |
| high / 1080p | 4−5 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 12−14 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 371% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | 35−40 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 35−40 |
| high / 768p | 30−35 | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in World of Tanks is 51% more, than GeForce 840M. | ||
Full Specs
| GeForce 840M | Tesla C2070 | |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |
| Code name | N15S-GT | GF100 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 March 2014 | 25 July 2011 |
| Pipelines | 384 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | |
| Transistor count | 3,100 million | |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
| Length | 248 mm | |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2988 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | |
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 92 Mh/s | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Optimus | + | |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | |
| GameWorks | + | |
| Check Price |