GRID K520 vs Tesla M2090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2090 and GRID K520, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M2090 outperforms K520 by a small 5% 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 | 543 | 555 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.15 |
| Power efficiency | 2.74 | 2.90 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,599 |
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 | 512 | 1536 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 95.36 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.332 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 ×2 |
| TMUs | 64 | 128 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 512 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | 6 GB | 4 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 924 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s ×2 |
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 3.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.85 | 8.44 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 23 July 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
Tesla M2090 has a 5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GRID K520, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 11% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Tesla M2090 and GRID K520.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
