Tesla M2090 vs GeForce RTX 3080
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3080 with Tesla M2090, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3080 outperforms Tesla M2090 by a whopping 584% 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 | 41 | 516 |
| Place by popularity | 79 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 40.56 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 14.26 | 2.67 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GA102 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 September 2020 (4 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 8704 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1440 MHz | 651 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1710 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 28,300 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 465.1 | 41.66 |
| Floating-point processing power | 29.77 TFLOPS | 1.332 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 48 |
| TMUs | 272 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | 272 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 68 | no data |
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 4.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 285 mm | 248 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 12-pin | 1x 6-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 | GDDR6X | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 10 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1188 MHz | 924 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 760.3 GB/s | 177.4 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
| CUDA | 8.5 | 2.0 |
| DLSS | + | - |
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 | 164
+681%
| 21−24
−681%
|
| 1440p | 122
+663%
| 16−18
−663%
|
| 4K | 85
+608%
| 12−14
−608%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.26 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.73 | no data |
| 4K | 8.22 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 290−300
+640%
|
40−45
−640%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 150−160
+614%
|
21−24
−614%
|
| God of War | 160−170
+671%
|
21−24
−671%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 172
+617%
|
24−27
−617%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 290−300
+640%
|
40−45
−640%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 138
+667%
|
18−20
−667%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 157
+648%
|
21−24
−648%
|
| Fortnite | 280−290
+623%
|
40−45
−623%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230−240
+687%
|
30−33
−687%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 152
+624%
|
21−24
−624%
|
| God of War | 135
+650%
|
18−20
−650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+629%
|
24−27
−629%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+644%
|
45−50
−644%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 156
+643%
|
21−24
−643%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 290−300
+640%
|
40−45
−640%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+595%
|
40−45
−595%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 134
+644%
|
18−20
−644%
|
| Dota 2 | 147
+600%
|
21−24
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150
+614%
|
21−24
−614%
|
| Fortnite | 280−290
+623%
|
40−45
−623%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230−240
+687%
|
30−33
−687%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140
+678%
|
18−20
−678%
|
| God of War | 131
+628%
|
18−20
−628%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 147
+600%
|
21−24
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 128
+611%
|
18−20
−611%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+629%
|
24−27
−629%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 303
+658%
|
40−45
−658%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+644%
|
45−50
−644%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 145
+590%
|
21−24
−590%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 131
+628%
|
18−20
−628%
|
| Dota 2 | 135
+650%
|
18−20
−650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140
+678%
|
18−20
−678%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230−240
+687%
|
30−33
−687%
|
| God of War | 110
+588%
|
16−18
−588%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+629%
|
24−27
−629%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 149
+610%
|
21−24
−610%
|
| Valorant | 268
+666%
|
35−40
−666%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 280−290
+623%
|
40−45
−623%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+646%
|
24−27
−646%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 450−500
+605%
|
65−70
−605%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 112
+600%
|
16−18
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95
+692%
|
12−14
−692%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+629%
|
24−27
−629%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+624%
|
55−60
−624%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 124
+589%
|
18−20
−589%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86
+617%
|
12−14
−617%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 135
+650%
|
18−20
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+641%
|
27−30
−641%
|
| God of War | 94
+683%
|
12−14
−683%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 130−140
+672%
|
18−20
−672%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+619%
|
21−24
−619%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+700%
|
10−11
−700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 143
+694%
|
18−20
−694%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65
+622%
|
9−10
−622%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 115
+619%
|
16−18
−619%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+624%
|
45−50
−624%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 91
+658%
|
12−14
−658%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+700%
|
10−11
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 43
+617%
|
6−7
−617%
|
| Dota 2 | 129
+617%
|
18−20
−617%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 94
+683%
|
12−14
−683%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+614%
|
21−24
−614%
|
| God of War | 66
+633%
|
9−10
−633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+586%
|
14−16
−586%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+690%
|
10−11
−690%
|
This is how RTX 3080 and Tesla M2090 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3080 is 681% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3080 is 663% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3080 is 608% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 59.87 | 8.75 |
| Recency | 1 September 2020 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 10 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 250 Watt |
RTX 3080 has a 584.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 66.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
Tesla M2090, on the other hand, has 28% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2090 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 3080 is a desktop graphics 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.
