AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 and the AMD Radeon Pro 450: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the Tesla M2090 scores 13,075 while the Radeon Pro 450 scores 9,002. The delta of 45.2% places the NVIDIA GPU firmly ahead, representing a substantial performance gap in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

The Tesla M2090's OpenCL result is not merely an isolated strong showing, it aligns with its broader benchmark standing in the database. The Tesla M2090 holds a 53rd percentile rank across all GPUs, placing it in the upper half of the entire database field. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, which trails by just 0.7%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950, which leads by 0.9%, and the AMD Radeon RX 580, which trails by 1.1%. The Tesla M2090 sits in a tight cluster where single-digit percentage points separate several cards, but against the Radeon Pro 450, the 45.2% margin is a far more decisive outcome.

The Radeon Pro 450, by contrast, shows an average benchmark score of 49th percentile across all GPUs, a middle-of-the-pack placement. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2200, which trails by 0.4%, the NVIDIA GeForce MX350, which leads by 0.7%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti, which trails by 1.1%, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, which trails by 1.7%. The AMD card's OpenCL score of 9,002, while lower than the Tesla's 13,075, competes in a far more modest league, where its 10,804 average across all benchmark tests lands within 1.1% of the field around it. Meanwhile the Tesla M2090's average benchmark score of 13,075, a figure driven entirely by its single OpenCL result, is a full 21.3% higher than the Radeon Pro 450's average, a metric gap that echoes the direct delta between the two cards.

What is striking is the consistency of the Tesla M2090's advantage. The data does not show a back-and-forth tradeoff in raw compute, the NVIDIA card wins decisively in OpenCL, and the Radeon Pro 450 has no recorded benchmark victory in the head-to-head dataset. The sole head-to-head matchup lists exactly one test, one win for the Tesla M2090, zero wins for the Radeon Pro 450.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divergence between the two GPUs reveals why the Tesla M2090's performance lead is so pronounced. The NVIDIA chip GF110, built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, uses a 40 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm node. The process shrink from 40 nm to 14 nm is a generational leap in manufacturing technology, yet the transistor counts are identical at 3,000 million for both chips. This produces a sharp contrast in die size: the Tesla M2090's die measures 520 mm², while the Radeon Pro 450's die is only 123 mm². The transistor density tells the story clearly, the Tesla M2090 packs 5.8 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Radeon Pro 450 achieves 24.4 million per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems differ in capacity and throughput. The Tesla M2090 carries 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus, delivering 177.4 GB/s bandwidth at 3.7 Gbps effective memory speed. The Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, producing 81.28 GB/s bandwidth at 5.1 Gbps effective. The Tesla M2090's memory clock of 924 MHz equals 3.7 Gbps effective when accounting for the GDDR5 GDDR5 transfer rate. The Radeon Pro 450's memory runs at 1270 MHz, translating to 5.1 Gbps effective. While the Radeon Pro 450 has faster memory in raw clock terms, the Tesla M2090's far wider memory bus grants substantially higher aggregate bandwidth.

Compute resources follow a different distribution across each chip's functional units. The Tesla M2090 fields 512 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Radeon Pro 450 counters with 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The pixel rate for the Tesla M2090 is 20.83 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s for the Radeon Pro 450, and texture rate is 41.66 GTexel/s versus 32.00 GTexel/s. In FP32 throughput, the Tesla M2090 reaches 1,332.2 GFLOPS, exceeding the Radeon Pro 450's 1,024.0 GFLOPS. The Radeon Pro 450 additionally lists FP16 performance at 1,024.0 GFLOPS, a 1:1 ratio, while the Tesla M2090 has no recorded FP16 capability.

The interface and power profile reflect their intended placements. The Tesla M2090 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, a dual-slot form factor, a 250 W TDP, and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector with a 600 W recommended PSU. The Radeon Pro 450 operates at a 35 W TDP, uses an MXM module slot, PCIe 3.0 x8, and has no listed power connectors or PSU recommendation. Display outputs also diverge, the Tesla M2090 has no display outputs while the Radeon Pro 450's outputs are portable device dependent. API support differs as well, the Tesla M2090 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 with no Vulkan entry, while the Radeon Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear decision based on raw compute performance. The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 45.2% lead over the AMD Radeon Pro 450. Its 13,075 OpenCL score and 53rd percentile rank across all GPUs put it in the upper half of the database, while the Radeon Pro 450's 9,002 OpenCL score and 49th percentile average place it near the median. For workloads that rely on FP32 throughput, the Tesla M2090's 1,332.2 GFLOPS exceeds the Radeon Pro 450's 1,024.0 GFLOPS, and its 177.4 GB/s memory bandwidth more than doubles the Radeon Pro 450's 81.28 GB/s.

However, the Radeon Pro 450 is not without its own arguments. It supports Vulkan 1.3, a feature the Tesla M2090 lacks entirely. It provides FP16 compute at 1,024.0 GFLOPS, which the Tesla M2090 does not record. Its 35 W TDP versus 250 W means it can operate in power-constrained environments where the Tesla M2090 would require substantial cooling and power delivery. The Radeon Pro 450 is a portable device dependent solution with an MXM module form factor, whereas the Tesla M2090 is a dual-slot accelerator with no display outputs.

Who should choose which? Strictly from the data, the Tesla M2090 is the pick for compute-heavy tasks where OpenCL performance is the priority. Its 45.2% win in the direct comparison and higher bandwidth make it the stronger performer in FP32-centric workloads. The Radeon Pro 450 is the pick for environments requiring Vulkan support, FP16 compute, or minimal power draw. The data does not indicate the Radeon Pro 450 wins in any benchmark, but its feature set addresses software stacks and form factor constraints that the Tesla M2090 cannot match.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13,075, which is 45.2% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 450's 9,002 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 delivers 177.4 GB/s over a 384 bit bus with 6 GB GDDR5, while the AMD Radeon Pro 450 provides 81.28 GB/s over a 128 bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5.

Q: What is the FP16 capability of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 has FP16 performance of 1,024.0 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 has no recorded FP16 performance in the database.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 has a 250 W TDP with a 600 W recommended PSU, while the AMD Radeon Pro 450 has a 35 W TDP with no listed PSU recommendation.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: Both the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 and the AMD Radeon Pro 450 have 3,000 million transistors, but the Tesla M2090 uses a 520 mm² die while the Radeon Pro 450 uses a 123 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 wins in every measured compute comparison. Its OpenCL score of 13,075 beats the Radeon Pro 450's 9,002 by 45.2%. Its FP32 throughput of 1,332.2 GFLOPS exceeds the Radeon Pro 450's 1,024.0 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 20.83 GPixel/s and texture rate of 41.66 GTexel/s both outpace the Radeon Pro 450's 12.80 GPixel/s and 32.00 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s is more than double the Radeon Pro 450's 81.28 GB/s. Its 53rd percentile rank across all GPUs and 13,075 average benchmark score also exceed the Radeon Pro 450's 49th percentile and 10,804 average. For FP32-heavy compute workloads, the Tesla M2090 is the superior choice based on the recorded data.

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 wins in areas outside raw compute scores. It provides Vulkan 1.3 support, which the Tesla M2090 does not. It offers FP16 performance at 1,024.0 GFLOPS, a capability not recorded for the Tesla M2090. Its 35 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Tesla M2090's 250 W, making it suitable for power-constrained systems. Its MXM module form factor and portable device dependent display outputs suit mobile or compact configurations, whereas the Tesla M2090 is a dual-slot card with no display outputs. The Radeon Pro 450 also uses a newer 14 nm process versus the Tesla M2090's 40 nm node, and its 24.4M transistors per mm² density far exceeds the Tesla M2090's 5.8M per mm².

The use-case split is clear: the Tesla M2090 wins where performance is paramount, the Radeon Pro 450 wins where compatibility, power efficiency, and modern API support take precedence.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla M2090 | AMD Radeon Pro 450 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GF110 | Baffin |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.8M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 81.28 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 924 MHz, 3.7 Gbps effective | 1270 MHz, 5.1 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 512 | 640 |

| TMUs | 64 | 40 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.83 GPixel/s | 12.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.66 GTexel/s | 32.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,332.2 GFLOPS | 1,024.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2011-07-24 | 2016-10-29 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |