GeForce GT 710 vs Tesla M2090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2090 with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.
Tesla M2090 outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 486% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 482 | 972 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 63 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
Power efficiency | 2.60 | 5.83 |
Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
GPU code name | GF110 | GK208 |
Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $34.99 |
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 | 512 | 192 |
Core clock speed | 651 MHz | 954 MHz |
Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 915 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 19 Watt |
Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 15.26 |
Floating-point processing power | 1.332 TFLOPS | 0.3663 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 48 | 8 |
TMUs | 64 | 16 |
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 | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
Length | 248 mm | 145 mm |
Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | DDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 924 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 14.4 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 | No outputs | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
HDMI | - | + |
HDCP | - | + |
Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
3D Vision | - | + |
PureVideo | - | + |
PhysX | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 4.6 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
CUDA | 2.0 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 45−50
+463%
| 8
−463%
|
1440p | 16−18
+433%
| 3
−433%
|
4K | 40−45
+471%
| 7
−471%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | no data | 4.37 |
1440p | no data | 11.66 |
4K | no data | 5.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Valorant | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Valorant | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Dota 2 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how Tesla M2090 and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- Tesla M2090 is 463% faster in 1080p
- Tesla M2090 is 433% faster in 1440p
- Tesla M2090 is 471% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 8.21 | 1.40 |
Recency | 25 July 2011 | 27 March 2014 |
Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 19 Watt |
Tesla M2090 has a 486.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GT 710, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 1215.8% lower power consumption.
The Tesla M2090 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 710 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.