Tesla C2090 vs GeForce GTX 650
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 718 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | 81 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.21 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.96 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 September 2012 (13 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 384 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1058 MHz | 651 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 64 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 33.86 | 41.66 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8125 TFLOPS | 1.332 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 768 KB |
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 | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 147 mm | 248 mm |
| Height | 4.38" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128-bit GDDR5 | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5.0 GB/s | 924 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.0 GB/s | 177.4 GB/s |
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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One Mini HDMI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
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 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 6 September 2012 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 64 Watt | 250 Watt |
GTX 650 has an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 290.6% lower power consumption.
Tesla C2090, on the other hand, has a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 650 and Tesla C2090. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 650 is a desktop graphics card while Tesla C2090 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.
