GeForce 940M vs Tesla C2070
In this comparison between GeForce 940M and Tesla C2070 you will find out which graphics card performs better in today's games. Bear in mind that third-party versions may have more efficient cooling and higher clock speeds. This will increase cards' performance, though not by much. In addition to raw power you should also take into account the dimensions. Thicker models simply will not fit into a small mini-ITX case. The resolution of your monitor also affects the choice, since 4K gameplay requires a more powerful GPU. And don't overspend on the graphics card. Other parts of your build may also need to be upgraded, save some money for the CPU or power supply. For some people GeForce 940M will be the best choice, for others Tesla C2070 will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
Tesla C2070
GeForce 940M is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: GeForce 940M 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 940M here:
Main Specs
| GeForce 940M | Tesla C2070 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 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 217% more power consumption, than GeForce 940M.
- GeForce 940M 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 940M.
- GeForce 940M is used in Laptops, and Tesla C2070 - in Desktops.
- GeForce 940M is build with Maxwell architecture, and Tesla C2070 - with Fermi.
- Core clock speed of GeForce 940M is 498 MHz higher, than Tesla C2070.
- GeForce 940M 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 940M.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 2−3 | 16−18 |
| ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 9−10 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 30−35 |
| medium / 1080p | 4−5 | 21−24 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 300% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 6−7 | 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 | 6−7 | 30−33 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Battlefield 5 is 337% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 50−55 | 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 6% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| 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 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 70−75 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 18−20 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 45−50 | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 17% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 70−75 | 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 94% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 20−22 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 18−20 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 18−20 |
| 4K / 2160p | 2−3 | 6−7 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 4−5 | 21−24 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Far Cry 5 is 340% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| 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 | 12−14 | 60−65 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Fortnite is 187% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 7−8 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 2−3 | 10−11 |
| low / 720p | 20−22 | 55−60 |
| medium / 1080p | 9−10 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Forza Horizon 4 is 233% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | 35−40 | 80−85 |
| high / 1080p | 6−7 | 30−35 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 12−14 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Grand Theft Auto V is 139% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 1−2 | 10−11 |
| ultra / 1080p | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| low / 720p | 6−7 | 30−35 |
| medium / 1080p | 3−4 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Metro Exodus is 533% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 90−95 | 110−120 |
| high / 1080p | 85−90 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 75−80 | − |
| medium / 1080p | 90−95 | 110−120 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Minecraft is 25% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 14−16 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 24−27 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 16−18 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 77% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 12−14 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 9−10 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 5−6 | 30−35 |
| medium / 1080p | − | 16−18 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 320% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 14−16 | 60−65 |
| medium / 768p | 10−11 | 35−40 |
| high / 1080p | 5−6 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 12−14 |
| 4K / 2160p | 1−2 | 6−7 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 300% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | 40−45 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 35−40 |
| high / 768p | 30−35 | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in World of Tanks is 51% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
Full Specs
| GeForce 940M | Tesla C2070 | |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |
| Code name | N16S-GT-S/B | GF100 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 March 2015 | 25 July 2011 |
| Pipelines | 384 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1072 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 28.22 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 903.2 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
| Length | 248 mm | |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2988 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 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 3.0 | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 101 Mh/s | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Optimus | + | |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | |
| GameWorks | + | |
| Check Price |