Radeon E6465 vs Tesla M2090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2090 with Radeon E6465, including specs and performance data.
M2090 outperforms E6465 by a whopping 1496% 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 | 1281 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.70 | 1.69 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Caicos |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) | 29 September 2015 (10 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 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 4.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.332 TFLOPS | 0.192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 128 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 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 924 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
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) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.78 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 29 September 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 25 Watt |
Tesla M2090 has a 1496% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Radeon E6465, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and 900% lower power consumption.
The Tesla M2090 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E6465 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon E6465 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.
