Tesla M2090 vs GeForce GT 1030
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 1030 with Tesla M2090, including specs and performance data.
M2090 outperforms GT 1030 by an impressive 54% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 656 | 543 |
| Place by popularity | 47 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.31 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 14.83 | 2.74 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 17 May 2017 (9 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1228 MHz | 651 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 35.23 | 41.66 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.127 TFLOPS | 1.332 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 24 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 768 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 248 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 924 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 177.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 2.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 25
−40%
| 35−40
+40%
|
| 1440p | 21
−42.9%
| 30−35
+42.9%
|
| 4K | 9
−33.3%
| 12−14
+33.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.16 | no data |
| 1440p | 3.76 | no data |
| 4K | 8.78 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 31
−45.2%
|
45−50
+45.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−42.1%
|
27−30
+42.1%
|
| Fortnite | 47
−48.9%
|
70−75
+48.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 28
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 152
−51.3%
|
230−240
+51.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 26
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
−44.3%
|
140−150
+44.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−45.8%
|
70−75
+45.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
| Fortnite | 36
−52.8%
|
55−60
+52.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24
−45.8%
|
35−40
+45.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
−37.9%
|
40−45
+37.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24
−45.8%
|
35−40
+45.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 123
−46.3%
|
180−190
+46.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20
−50%
|
30−33
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−45.8%
|
70−75
+45.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Valorant | 14
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 25
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−47.7%
|
65−70
+47.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−52.5%
|
90−95
+52.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−50%
|
30−33
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how GT 1030 and Tesla M2090 compete in popular games:
- Tesla M2090 is 40% faster in 1080p
- Tesla M2090 is 43% faster in 1440p
- Tesla M2090 is 33% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.75 | 8.85 |
| Recency | 17 May 2017 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 250 Watt |
GT 1030 has an age advantage of 5 years, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 733% lower power consumption.
Tesla M2090, on the other hand, has a 54% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Tesla M2090 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 1030 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 1030 is a desktop graphics card while Tesla M2090 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
