Quadro M2000M vs Tesla M2090

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tesla M2090 with Quadro M2000M, including specs and performance data.

Tesla M2090
2011
6 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
9.21
+6.4%

Tesla M2090 outperforms M2000M by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking471497
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.6311.25
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameGF110GM107
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date25 July 2011 (13 years ago)3 December 2015 (9 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 cores512640
Core clock speed651 MHz1029 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1098 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate41.6643.92
Floating-point processing power1.332 TFLOPS1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs4816
TMUs6440

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
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 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth177.4 GB/s80 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 outputsNo outputs
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A+
CUDA2.05.0

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 HD35−40
+0%
35
+0%
4K12−14
+0%
12
+0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30
+0%
30
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
World of Tanks 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
World of Tanks 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how Tesla M2090 and M2000M compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p
  • A tie in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.21 8.66
Recency 25 July 2011 3 December 2015
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 55 Watt

Tesla M2090 has a 6.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

M2000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 354.5% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Tesla M2090 and Quadro M2000M.

Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation card while Quadro M2000M is a mobile 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.


NVIDIA Tesla M2090
Tesla M2090
NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
Quadro M2000M

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
3.6 504 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M 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.