GeForce RTX 2080 Super vs Tesla M2090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2090 with GeForce RTX 2080 Super, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 Super outperforms Tesla M2090 by a whopping 433% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 473 | 63 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 31.37 |
| Power efficiency | 2.61 | 13.91 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 23 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $699 |
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 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | 1650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1815 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 348.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.332 TFLOPS | 11.15 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 64 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 924 MHz | 1937 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 495.9 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 7.5 |
| 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 | 24−27
−492%
| 142
+492%
|
| 1440p | 18−20
−433%
| 96
+433%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−508%
| 73
+508%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.92 |
| 1440p | no data | 7.28 |
| 4K | no data | 9.58 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 111
+0%
|
111
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 253
+0%
|
253
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 143
+0%
|
143
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Valorant | 301
+0%
|
301
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 138
+0%
|
138
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 185
+0%
|
185
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 142
+0%
|
142
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 113
+0%
|
113
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 168
+0%
|
168
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 195
+0%
|
195
+0%
|
| Valorant | 283
+0%
|
283
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 131
+0%
|
131
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 159
+0%
|
159
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Valorant | 217
+0%
|
217
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 180
+0%
|
180
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 273
+0%
|
273
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Valorant | 262
+0%
|
262
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 116
+0%
|
116
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
This is how Tesla M2090 and RTX 2080 Super compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Super is 492% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Super is 433% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Super is 508% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.52 | 50.71 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 23 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
RTX 2080 Super has a 432.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Super 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 RTX 2080 Super 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.
