Radeon RX 590 vs Tesla M2090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2090 with Radeon RX 590, including specs and performance data.
RX 590 outperforms M2090 by a whopping 151% 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 | 549 | 292 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 92 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 13.71 |
| Power efficiency | 2.75 | 9.87 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Polaris 30 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) | 15 November 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $279 |
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 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | 1469 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1545 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 222.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.332 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 576 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 241 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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 924 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 256.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 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 | 40−45
−60.8%
| 102 |
| 1440p | 21−24 | 60
+186%
|
| 4K | 14−16 | 38
+171%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.74 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.65 |
| 4K | no data | 7.34 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 50−55 | 50−55 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 133 | 133 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 85 | 85 |
| Fortnite | 139 | 139 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120 | 120 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120 | 120 |
| Valorant | 301 | 301 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 111 | 111 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260 | 250−260 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 79 | 79 |
| Far Cry 6 | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Fortnite | 138 | 138 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 113 | 113 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79 | 79 |
| Metro Exodus | 52 | 52 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 108 | 108 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 88 | 88 |
| Valorant | 287 | 287 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100 | 100 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 74 | 74 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 91 | 91 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 83 | 83 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51 | 51 |
| Valorant | 110 | 110 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 96 | 96 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Far Cry 6 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Metro Exodus | 31 | 31 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 232 | 232 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 35−40 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 50−55 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Far Cry 6 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41 | 41 |
| Metro Exodus | 19 | 19 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 32 | 32 |
| Valorant | 113 | 113 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40 | 40 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| Dota 2 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24 | 24 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46 | 46 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35 | 35 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 29 | 29 |
This is how Tesla M2090 and RX 590 compete in popular games:
- RX 590 is 155% faster in 1080p
- RX 590 is 186% faster in 1440p
- RX 590 is 171% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.82 | 22.17 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 15 November 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 175 Watt |
RX 590 has a 151% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 70% more advanced lithography process, and 30% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2090 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 590 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
