Radeon Graphics vs Tesla M2090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2090 with Radeon Graphics, including specs and performance data.
Tesla M2090 outperforms Graphics by a whopping 379% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 459 | 892 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Power efficiency | 2.63 | 9.14 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Renoir |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | no data (2024 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 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 42.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.332 TFLOPS | 1.344 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 28 |
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 | IGP |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 924 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | no data |
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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 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 | 9.49 | 1.98 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 15 Watt |
Tesla M2090 has a 379.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Graphics, on the other hand, has a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.
The Tesla M2090 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Graphics in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Graphics is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
