Radeon RX 6800 vs Tesla M2090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2090 with Radeon RX 6800, including specs and performance data.
RX 6800 outperforms M2090 by a whopping 498% 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 | 548 | 64 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 39.03 |
| Power efficiency | 2.74 | 16.42 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (15 years ago) | 28 October 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $579 |
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 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2105 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 505.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.332 TFLOPS | 16.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 96 |
| TMUs | 64 | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 60 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 960 KB |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 924 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| 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 | 27−30
−84.6%
| 175 |
| 1440p | 16−18
−84.3%
| 102 |
| 4K | 10−12 | 62
+520%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.31 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.68 |
| 4K | no data | 9.34 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 262 | 262 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 350 | 350 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 135 | 135 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 322 | 322 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 198 | 198 |
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 349 | 349 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 115 | 115 |
| Far Cry 5 | 197 | 197 |
| Fortnite | 230−240 | 230−240 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210 | 200−210 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 120 | 120 |
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 259 | 259 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 104 | 104 |
| Dota 2 | 145 | 145 |
| Far Cry 5 | 186 | 186 |
| Fortnite | 230−240 | 230−240 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210 | 200−210 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 159 | 159 |
| Metro Exodus | 147 | 147 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 269 | 269 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 99 | 99 |
| Dota 2 | 128 | 128 |
| Far Cry 5 | 174 | 174 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210 | 200−210 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 152 | 152 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 230−240 | 230−240 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 175 | 175 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400 | 350−400 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 125 | 125 |
| Metro Exodus | 89 | 89 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 350−400 | 350−400 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74 | 74 |
| Far Cry 5 | 163 | 163 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120 | 110−120 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 47 | 47 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 132 | 132 |
| Metro Exodus | 55 | 55 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 99 | 99 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34 | 34 |
| Dota 2 | 102 | 102 |
| Far Cry 5 | 91 | 91 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95 | 90−95 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 75−80 |
This is how Tesla M2090 and RX 6800 compete in popular games:
- RX 6800 is 548% faster in 1080p
- RX 6800 is 538% faster in 1440p
- RX 6800 is 520% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.85 | 52.95 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 28 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
RX 6800 has a 498% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 167% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 83% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6800 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 6800 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.
