Tesla X2090 vs GeForce GT 520
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1140 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.93 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 April 2011 (13 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 651 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 102 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 6.480 | 41.66 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1555 TFLOPS | 1.332 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 48 |
| TMUs | 8 | 64 |
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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 2.7" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | MXM Module |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB (DDR3) | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz (DDR3) | 924 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 177.4 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Dual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional) | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
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 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 13 April 2011 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB (DDR3) | 6 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 225 Watt |
GT 520 has 675.9% lower power consumption.
Tesla X2090, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 months, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.
We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 520 and Tesla X2090. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce GT 520 is a desktop card while Tesla X2090 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
