GeForce 9300M GS vs Tesla M2090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2090 with GeForce 9300M GS, including specs and performance data.
M2090 outperforms 9300M GS by a whopping 2732% 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 | 536 | 1388 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.70 | 1.84 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | G98 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) | 4 June 2008 (17 years ago) |
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 | 512 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 13 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 4.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.332 TFLOPS | 0.0224 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 34 |
| ROPs | 48 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 16 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-I |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 924 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 11.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 26 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.78 | 0.31 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 4 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 13 Watt |
Tesla M2090 has a 2732% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 63% more advanced lithography process.
9300M GS, on the other hand, has 1823% lower power consumption.
The Tesla M2090 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9300M GS in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce 9300M GS is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
