Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs Tesla M2090

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro 7000 Quadro Plex 7000 C2075 C2090 M2075 M2090 X2070 X2090
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
340 OEM 350 350 640SP 350 Fake Card 350 OEM 350X OEM 360 360 896SP 360E 370 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tesla M2090 with Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), including specs and performance data.

Tesla M2090
2011
6 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
8.77
+245%

M2090 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 245% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking530865
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.69no data
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code nameGF110Kaveri Spectre
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date25 July 2011 (14 years ago)14 January 2014 (11 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 cores512384
Core clock speed651 MHz720 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Wattno data
Texture fill rate41.66no data
Floating-point processing power1.332 TFLOPSno data
ROPs48no data
TMUs64no data
L1 Cache1 MBno data
L2 Cache768 KBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount6 GBno data
Memory bus width384 Bitno data
Memory clock speed924 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth177.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA2.0-

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 HD45−50
+221%
14
−221%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+0%
9
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Tesla M2090 and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

  • Tesla M2090 is 221% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 8.77 2.54
Recency 25 July 2011 14 January 2014
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm

Tesla M2090 has a 245.3% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Tesla M2090 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop one.

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
AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
P104-100 P104 100
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
vs
UHD Graphics 710 UHD Graphics 710
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
Pro WX 4100 Radeon Pro WX 4100
Tesla C2090 Tesla C2090
vs
RX 6600 6600
Tesla M2070 Tesla M2070
vs
GT 625 OEM 625 OEM
Tesla M2070 Tesla M2070
vs
Radeon 625 625
Tesla M2070-Q Tesla M2070-Q
vs
RTX 4070 GDDR6 4070 GDDR6
Tesla M2075 Tesla M2075
vs
RX 6800M 6800M
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
R7 360E 360E
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
R7 360 896SP 360 896SP
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
R7 340 OEM 340 OEM
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
R7 350 OEM 350 OEM
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
ATI Mobility HD 4850 X2 4850 X2

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
3.9 21 votes

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Tesla M2090 or Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.