GeForce GTX 850M vs Tesla M2090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2090 with GeForce GTX 850M, including specs and performance data.
M2090 outperforms 850M by a considerable 46% 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 | 647 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.74 | 10.45 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) | 12 March 2014 (12 years ago) |
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 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | Up to 936 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 36.08 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.332 TFLOPS | 1.155 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 2 MB |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | DDR3 or GDDR5 |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 924 MHz | Up to 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 80.0 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| LVDS signal support | no data | Up to 1920x1200 |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP content protection | - | + |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | - | + |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
| Ansel | no data | + |
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 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | + |
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 120−130
+42.9%
| 84
−42.9%
|
| Full HD | 45−50
+40.6%
| 32
−40.6%
|
| 4K | 14−16
+40%
| 10
−40%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Palworld | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Palworld | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how Tesla M2090 and GTX 850M compete in popular games:
- Tesla M2090 is 43% faster in 900p
- Tesla M2090 is 41% faster in 1080p
- Tesla M2090 is 40% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.85 | 6.08 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 12 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 45 Watt |
Tesla M2090 has a 46% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 850M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 456% lower power consumption.
The Tesla M2090 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 850M in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 850M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
