Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs Tesla M2090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2090 with Radeon Pro Vega 48, including specs and performance data.
Pro Vega 48 outperforms Tesla M2090 by a whopping 208% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 457 | 192 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 19 March 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. 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 | 1200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 249.6 |
| Floating-point performance | 1.332 gflops | 7.987 gflops |
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 | 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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3696 MHz | 1572 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 402.4 GB/s |
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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.125 |
| 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 | 9.51 | 29.29 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 19 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
Pro Vega 48 has a 208% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro Vega 48 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2090 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation card while Radeon Pro Vega 48 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
