T400 vs Tesla M2090
Aggregated performance score
Tesla M2090 outperforms T400 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 430 | 434 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.52 | 16.46 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (12 years ago) | 6 May 2021 (2 years ago) |
| Current price | $1844 | $83 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
T400 has 3065% better value for money than Tesla M2090.
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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1425 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 34.20 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,331.2 gflops | no 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3696 MHz | 10 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 80 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 | 3x mini-DisplayPort |
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 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 7.5 |
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 | 9.47 | 9.37 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 6 May 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 30 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Tesla M2090 and T400.
Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation card while T400 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.
