FirePro M4100 vs Tesla C2070
In this comparison between FirePro M4100 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 FirePro M4100 will be the best choice, for others Tesla C2070 will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
Tesla C2070
FirePro M4100 is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: FirePro M4100 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 M4100 here:
Main Specs
| FirePro M4100 | Tesla C2070 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI |
| Check Price |
- FirePro M4100 is connected by PCIe 3.0 x8, and Tesla C2070 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.
- Tesla C2070 has 4 GB more memory, than FirePro M4100.
- FirePro M4100 is used in Mobile workstations, and Tesla C2070 - in Desktops.
- FirePro M4100 is build with GCN architecture, and Tesla C2070 - with Fermi.
- Core clock speed of FirePro M4100 is 96 MHz higher, than Tesla C2070.
- FirePro M4100 is manufactured by 28 nm process technology, and Tesla C2070 - by 40 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of FirePro M4100 is 1012 MHz higher, than Tesla C2070.
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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 | 6−7 | 30−33 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Battlefield 5 is 311% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 210−220 |
| medium / 768p | 95−100 | 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | 2−3 | 20−22 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 18−20 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 18−20 |
| 4K / 2160p | 1−2 | 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 450% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | 4−5 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 21−24 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| low / 720p | 18−20 | 55−60 |
| medium / 1080p | 7−8 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of Tesla C2070 in Forza Horizon 4 is 290% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
| 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 FirePro M4100. | ||
Full Specs
| FirePro M4100 | Tesla C2070 | |
| Architecture | GCN | Fermi |
| Code name | Mars | GF100 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 October 2013 | 25 July 2011 |
| Pipelines | 384 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 670 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Transistor count | 950 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 16.08 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 514.6 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
| Length | 248 mm | |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 2988 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 143.4 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 | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 74 Mh/s | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Check Price |