Tesla M2090 vs Radeon RX 5500 XT

Place in performance ranking	217	436
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	15.32	0.57
Architecture	no data	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Navi 14 XTX	GF110
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	12 December 2019 (4 years ago)	25 July 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$169	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 5500 XT has 2588% better value for money than Tesla M2090.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1408	512
Core clock speed	1607 MHz	651 MHz
Boost clock speed	1845 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,400 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	162.4	41.66
Floating-point performance	no data	1,331.2 gflops

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 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	180 mm	248 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	14000 MHz	3696 MHz
Memory bandwidth	224.0 GB/s	177.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	no data	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	75 +150%	30−35 −150%
1440p	42 +163%	16−18 −163%
4K	23 +156%	9−10 −156%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

78
+160%

30−33

−160%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55 +189%	18−20 −189%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	72 +167%	27−30 −167%
Battlefield 5	75−80 +160%	30−33 −160%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 +167%	18−20 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	61 +154%	24−27 −154%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +162%	21−24 −162%
Far Cry New Dawn	60−65 +158%	24−27 −158%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +155%	55−60 −155%
Hitman 3	64 +167%	24−27 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +175%	40−45 −175%
Metro Exodus	132 +164%	50−55 −164%
Red Dead Redemption 2	108 +170%	40−45 −170%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80−85 +167%	30−33 −167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	202 +153%	80−85 −153%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	66 +175%	24−27 −175%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	58 +176%	21−24 −176%
Battlefield 5	75−80 +160%	30−33 −160%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 +167%	18−20 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	45 +150%	18−20 −150%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +162%	21−24 −162%
Far Cry New Dawn	60−65 +158%	24−27 −158%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +155%	55−60 −155%
Hitman 3	62 +158%	24−27 −158%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +175%	40−45 −175%
Metro Exodus	94 +169%	35−40 −169%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +158%	24−27 −158%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	108 +170%	40−45 −170%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +189%	18−20 −189%
Watch Dogs: Legion	202 +153%	80−85 −153%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55 +189%	18−20 −189%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	49 +172%	18−20 −172%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 +167%	18−20 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	40 +150%	16−18 −150%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +162%	21−24 −162%
Forza Horizon 4	56 +167%	21−24 −167%
Hitman 3	55 +162%	21−24 −162%
Horizon Zero Dawn	87 +190%	30−33 −190%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	95 +171%	35−40 −171%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	58 +176%	21−24 −176%
Watch Dogs: Legion	36 +157%	14−16 −157%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

76
+153%

30−33

−153%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +157%	14−16 −157%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +150%	10−11 −150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	37 +164%	14−16 −164%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +170%	10−11 −170%
Cyberpunk 2077	20 +150%	8−9 −150%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +170%	10−11 −170%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +170%	50−55 −170%
Hitman 3	36 +157%	14−16 −157%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65 +171%	24−27 −171%
Metro Exodus	60 +150%	24−27 −150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	66 +175%	24−27 −175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Watch Dogs: Legion	184 +163%	70−75 −163%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

49
+172%

18−20

−172%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +156%	9−10 −156%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +157%	7−8 −157%
Hitman 3	26 +160%	10−11 −160%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +171%	45−50 −171%
Metro Exodus	37 +164%	14−16 −164%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	31 +158%	12−14 −158%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	19 +171%	7−8 −171%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Cyberpunk 2077	8 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Forza Horizon 4	21 +163%	8−9 −163%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	38 +171%	14−16 −171%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14 +180%	5−6 −180%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+167%

9−10
−167%

This is how RX 5500 XT and Tesla M2090 compete in popular games:

RX 5500 XT is 150% faster in 1080p
RX 5500 XT is 163% faster in 1440p
RX 5500 XT is 156% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	23.72	9.51
Recency	12 December 2019	25 July 2011
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	7 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	250 Watt

RX 5500 XT has a 149.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 5500 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2090 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 5500 XT is a desktop card while Tesla M2090 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

Radeon RX 5500 XT

Tesla M2090

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Error: Запрос select b.card_id from ss_benchmarks_results as b left join ss_cards as i on i._id=b.card_id and i._disabled=0 and i.redirect_to=0 left join ss_cards_custom as custom on custom.filename=i.filename and custom._disabled=0 left join ss_stat_exist as pop on pop.item_type="video" and pop.item1=i._id and pop.item2=4365 and pop.lang="2" left join ss_stat_exist as pop2 on pop2.item_type="video" and pop2.item1=4365 and pop2.item2=i._id and pop2.lang="2" where b.benchmark_id=-1 and i.type="desktop" and i.prof="0" and i._disabled=0 and ( if(pop.visits,pop.visits,pop2.visits)>=1 OR ( to_days(now()) - to_days(replace("2019-12-12","-00","-01"))<=366/2 OR to_days(now()) - to_days(replace(if(custom.date_of_announcement AND custom.date_of_announcement!="0000-01-00",custom.date_of_announcement,i.date_of_announcement),"-00","-01"))<=366/2 ) ) having !isnull(i._id) order by abs(23.72 - b.result) asc /* # 1 */ limit 6 вызвал ошибку Unknown column 'i._id' in 'having clause'

Error: Запрос select b.card_id from ss_benchmarks_results as b left join ss_cards as i on i._id=b.card_id and i._disabled=0 and i.redirect_to=0 left join ss_cards_custom as custom on custom.filename=i.filename and custom._disabled=0 left join ss_stat_exist as pop on pop.item_type="video" and pop.item1=i._id and pop.item2=2529 and pop.lang="2" left join ss_stat_exist as pop2 on pop2.item_type="video" and pop2.item1=2529 and pop2.item2=i._id and pop2.lang="2" where b.benchmark_id=-1 and i.type="desktop" and i.prof="0" and i._disabled=0 and ( if(pop.visits,pop.visits,pop2.visits)>=1 OR ( to_days(now()) - to_days(replace("2011-07-25","-00","-01"))<=366/2 OR to_days(now()) - to_days(replace(if(custom.date_of_announcement AND custom.date_of_announcement!="0000-01-00",custom.date_of_announcement,i.date_of_announcement),"-00","-01"))<=366/2 ) ) having !isnull(i._id) order by abs(9.51 - b.result) asc /* # 2 */ limit 6 вызвал ошибку Unknown column 'i._id' in 'having clause'