GeForce GTX 1650 vs Tesla M2090

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tesla M2090 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

Tesla M2090
2011
6 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
9.53

GTX 1650 outperforms Tesla M2090 by a whopping 115% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking466272
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data37.80
Power efficiency2.6318.84
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGF110TU117
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date25 July 2011 (13 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores512896
Core clock speed651 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate41.6693.24
Floating-point processing power1.332 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs4832
TMUs6456

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length248 mm229 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed924 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth177.4 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.07.5

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 HD30−35
−130%
69
+130%
1440p18−20
−122%
40
+122%
4K10−12
−130%
23
+130%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.16
1440pno data3.73
4Kno data6.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Elden Ring 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 66
+0%
66
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+0%
17
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 94
+0%
94
+0%
Metro Exodus 66
+0%
66
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 77
+0%
77
+0%
Valorant 85
+0%
85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75
+0%
75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Dota 2 82
+0%
82
+0%
Elden Ring 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 90
+0%
90
+0%
Fortnite 82
+0%
82
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 74
+0%
74
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 75
+0%
75
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 46
+0%
46
+0%
World of Tanks 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55
+0%
55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 62
+0%
62
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 61
+0%
61
+0%
Valorant 70
+0%
70
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Elden Ring 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+0%
17
+0%
World of Tanks 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 41
+0%
41
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 40
+0%
40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Elden Ring 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 29
+0%
29
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
29
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3
+0%
3
+0%
Dota 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 26
+0%
26
+0%
Valorant 21
+0%
21
+0%

This is how Tesla M2090 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 130% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 122% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 130% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.53 20.48
Recency 25 July 2011 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 75 Watt

Tesla M2090 has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 114.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2090 in performance tests.

Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop 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.


NVIDIA Tesla M2090
Tesla M2090
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 30 votes

Rate Tesla M2090 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 24310 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.