
GeForce RTX 4070
Popular choices:

Tesla C2075
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
GeForce RTX 4070
2023Why buy it
- ✅+792.2% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 44.9 vs 0 G3D/$ ($599 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ✅500% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (12 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅More future proof: Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer clear downsides in this head-to-head, aside from the usual pricing and availability swings.
Tesla C2075
2011Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,017 vs 26,919).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 12 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2011-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 44.9 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
GeForce RTX 4070
2023Tesla C2075
2011Why buy it
- ✅+792.2% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 44.9 vs 0 G3D/$ ($599 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ✅500% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (12 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅More future proof: Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer clear downsides in this head-to-head, aside from the usual pricing and availability swings.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,017 vs 26,919).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 12 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2011-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 44.9 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce RTX 4070 better than Tesla C2075?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Tesla C2075 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
Games Benchmarks
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | GeForce RTX 4070 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 183 FPS | 82 FPS |
| medium | 167 FPS | 68 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 131 FPS | 30 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 150 FPS | 64 FPS |
| medium | 124 FPS | 53 FPS |
| high | 110 FPS | 34 FPS |
| ultra | 101 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 24 FPS |
| medium | 78 FPS | 22 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 14 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 12 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce RTX 4070 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 544 FPS | 120 FPS |
| medium | 454 FPS | 92 FPS |
| high | 353 FPS | 73 FPS |
| ultra | 299 FPS | 56 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 351 FPS | 79 FPS |
| medium | 288 FPS | 55 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 40 FPS |
| ultra | 197 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 172 FPS | 36 FPS |
| medium | 144 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 125 FPS | 23 FPS |
| ultra | 101 FPS | 18 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce RTX 4070 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 884 FPS | 136 FPS |
| medium | 713 FPS | 109 FPS |
| high | 643 FPS | 91 FPS |
| ultra | 569 FPS | 68 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 684 FPS | 102 FPS |
| medium | 549 FPS | 81 FPS |
| high | 483 FPS | 68 FPS |
| ultra | 424 FPS | 51 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 467 FPS | 68 FPS |
| medium | 373 FPS | 54 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 277 FPS | 34 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce RTX 4070 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 751 FPS | 136 FPS |
| medium | 612 FPS | 109 FPS |
| high | 536 FPS | 91 FPS |
| ultra | 497 FPS | 68 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 615 FPS | 102 FPS |
| medium | 500 FPS | 81 FPS |
| high | 433 FPS | 68 FPS |
| ultra | 395 FPS | 51 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 384 FPS | 68 FPS |
| medium | 324 FPS | 54 FPS |
| high | 301 FPS | 43 FPS |
| ultra | 272 FPS | 30 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce RTX 4070 and Tesla C2075

GeForce RTX 4070
GeForce RTX 4070
The GeForce RTX 4070 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 12 2023. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 1920 MHz to 2475 MHz. It has 5888 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 26,919 points. Launch price was $599.

Tesla C2075
Tesla C2075
The Tesla C2075 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 25 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 574 MHz. It has 448 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 247W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,017 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce RTX 4070 scores 26,919 versus the Tesla C2075's 3,017 — the GeForce RTX 4070 leads by 792.2%. The GeForce RTX 4070 is built on Ada Lovelace while the Tesla C2075 uses Fermi 2.0, both on 5 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 5,888 (GeForce RTX 4070) vs 448 (Tesla C2075). Raw compute: 29.15 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 4070) vs 1.028 TFLOPS (Tesla C2075).
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4070 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 26,919+792% | 3,017 |
| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Fermi 2.0 |
| Process Node | 5 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 5888+1214% | 448 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 29.15 TFLOPS+2736% | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+33% | 48 |
| TMUs | 184+229% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 5.8 MB+559% | 0.88 MB |
| L2 Cache | 36 MB+4700% | 0.75 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the GeForce RTX 4070 is support for DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The Tesla C2075 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.The GeForce RTX 4070 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Tesla C2075 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4070 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | DLSS 3.5 Super Resolution | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | Yes (DLSS 3.5) | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce RTX 4070 comes with 12 GB of VRAM, while the Tesla C2075 has 2 GB. The GeForce RTX 4070 offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 192-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 36 MB (GeForce RTX 4070) vs 0.75 MB (Tesla C2075) — the GeForce RTX 4070 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4070 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 12 GB+500% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6X | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 192-bit+200% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 36 MB+4700% | 0.75 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (GeForce RTX 4070) vs 12 (11_0) (Tesla C2075). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 1.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4070 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+300% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (GeForce RTX 4070) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (Tesla C2075).
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4070 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 8th Gen NVENC (2x) | — |
| Decoder | 5th Gen NVDEC | — |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce RTX 4070 draws 200W versus the Tesla C2075's 247W — a 21% difference. The GeForce RTX 4070 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 650W (GeForce RTX 4070) vs 350W (Tesla C2075). Power connectors: 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4070 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 200W-19% | 247W |
| Recommended PSU | 650W | 350W-46% |
| Power Connector | 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 304mm | — |
| Height | 137mm | — |
| Slots | 3 | 2-33% |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C-6% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 134.6+1003% | 12.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce RTX 4070 launched at $599 MSRP, while the Tesla C2075 launched at $0. The Tesla C2075 costs 100+% less ($599 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 44.9 (GeForce RTX 4070) vs Infinity (Tesla C2075) — the Tesla C2075 offers Infinity% better value. The GeForce RTX 4070 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2011).
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4070 | Tesla C2075 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $599 | $0-100% |
| Performance per Dollar | 44.9 | Infinity |
| Codename | AD104 | GF110 |
| Release | April 12 2023 | July 25 2011 |
| Ranking | #32 | #553 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












