Tesla M2090 vs GeForce GTX 1080
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 with Tesla M2090, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1080 outperforms Tesla M2090 by a whopping 324% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 106 | 472 |
| Place by popularity | 62 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.64 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 15.42 | 2.62 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2560 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 651 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 41.66 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.873 TFLOPS | 1.332 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 160 | 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 | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 248 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| 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 | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10 GB/s | 924 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 177.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| 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 | 127
+370%
| 27−30
−370%
|
| 1440p | 78
+333%
| 18−20
−333%
|
| 4K | 59
+392%
| 12−14
−392%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.72 | no data |
| 1440p | 7.68 | no data |
| 4K | 10.15 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 110−120
+367%
|
24−27
−367%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+372%
|
18−20
−372%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+383%
|
18−20
−383%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 110−120
+367%
|
24−27
−367%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 166
+374%
|
35−40
−374%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+372%
|
18−20
−372%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+383%
|
18−20
−383%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+337%
|
27−30
−337%
|
| Fortnite | 285
+338%
|
65−70
−338%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140
+367%
|
30−33
−367%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+358%
|
24−27
−358%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 123
+356%
|
27−30
−356%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+340%
|
50−55
−340%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 110−120
+367%
|
24−27
−367%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 142
+373%
|
30−33
−373%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+372%
|
18−20
−372%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 272
+353%
|
60−65
−353%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+383%
|
18−20
−383%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+325%
|
24−27
−325%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 113
+371%
|
24−27
−371%
|
| Fortnite | 199
+342%
|
45−50
−342%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 137
+357%
|
30−33
−357%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+358%
|
24−27
−358%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 119
+341%
|
27−30
−341%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+363%
|
16−18
−363%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 113
+371%
|
24−27
−371%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+363%
|
16−18
−363%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+340%
|
50−55
−340%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 123
+356%
|
27−30
−356%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 47
+370%
|
10−11
−370%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+383%
|
18−20
−383%
|
| Dota 2 | 100
+376%
|
21−24
−376%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+333%
|
24−27
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+367%
|
24−27
−367%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+358%
|
24−27
−358%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 97
+362%
|
21−24
−362%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+350%
|
18−20
−350%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+340%
|
50−55
−340%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 146
+387%
|
30−33
−387%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+328%
|
60−65
−328%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72
+350%
|
16−18
−350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+338%
|
40−45
−338%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+360%
|
55−60
−360%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 98
+367%
|
21−24
−367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 77
+328%
|
18−20
−328%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+343%
|
21−24
−343%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+371%
|
14−16
−371%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+338%
|
16−18
−338%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 95
+352%
|
21−24
−352%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 74
+363%
|
16−18
−363%
|
| Metro Exodus | 28
+367%
|
6−7
−367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 56
+367%
|
12−14
−367%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+356%
|
50−55
−356%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 53
+342%
|
12−14
−342%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 129
+330%
|
30−33
−330%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+367%
|
9−10
−367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+364%
|
14−16
−364%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 34
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 46
+360%
|
10−11
−360%
|
This is how GTX 1080 and Tesla M2090 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 is 370% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1080 is 333% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1080 is 392% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.22 | 9.48 |
| Recency | 27 May 2016 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 250 Watt |
GTX 1080 has a 324.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 38.9% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2090 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 is a desktop card while Tesla M2090 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
