AMD Radeon Pro 555 vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 and the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they represent vastly different design philosophies and eras. The Radeon Pro 555 is a mobile-integrated GPU from 2017 built on a modern 14nm process, while the Tesla M2090 is a dual-slot compute accelerator from 2011 on a 40nm process. Benchmark data shows the Tesla M2090 holds a narrow lead in the single available head-to-head test, yet the two cards are positioned nearly identically in the overall performance percentile. The Radeon Pro 555 sits at the 54th percentile among all GPUs, while the Tesla M2090 is at the 53rd, making them statistical peers despite their architectural differences. Their average benchmark scores are also close, with the Radeon at 13,407 and the Tesla at 13,075, a difference of just 2.5%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13,075, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555 scores 11,682. The delta percentage shows the Tesla is ahead by 10.7%, which is a decisive margin in a single synthetic workload. This result is notable because the Radeon Pro 555 has a significantly higher memory clock speed and a newer architecture, yet the Tesla’s wider 384-bit memory bus and larger 6GB frame buffer contribute to its victory in this compute-oriented test.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Radeon Pro 555 has additional scores in other API tests that the Tesla M2090 does not. The Radeon achieves 16,236 in Geekbench Metal and 12,303 in Geekbench Vulkan, tests for which the Tesla has no recorded results due to its lack of modern API support. The Tesla M2090 does not support Vulkan at all, and its DirectX support is limited to version 12 (11_0), whereas the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0). This means the Tesla’s single score is its only data point, and it wins the only comparison where both cards have results.

When interpreting the head-to-head result, the 10.7% lead for the Tesla is significant but not overwhelming. It reflects the Tesla’s compute-focused design: 512 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, paired with 6GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus delivering 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon counters with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs, but its memory bandwidth is just 81.60 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The Tesla’s raw memory throughput is more than double that of the Radeon, which likely explains its advantage in the OpenCL workload.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 wins in the compute-heavy OpenCL benchmark, scoring 13,075 against the Radeon’s 11,682. This makes it the stronger choice for raw GPGPU compute tasks that rely on OpenCL, particularly given its superior memory bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s and higher pixel rate of 20.83 GPixel/s. The Tesla also has a higher texture rate at 41.66 GTexel/s, marginally edging out the Radeon’s 40.80 GTexel/s. For workloads that saturate memory or require large datasets, the Tesla’s 6GB frame buffer and 384-bit bus give it a clear structural advantage.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 wins in every other measurable category, though only through benchmark tests the Tesla cannot run. Its Geekbench Metal score of 16,236 is its strongest result, and its Vulkan score of 12,303 shows modern API support that the Tesla completely lacks. The Radeon also has a higher transistor density at 24.4M per mm² versus the Tesla’s 5.8M per mm², reflecting its more efficient 14nm process node. The Radeon’s average benchmark score of 13,407 is higher than the Tesla’s 13,075, meaning that across all available tests, the Radeon comes out ahead by 2.5% when including its Metal and Vulkan results.

For gaming or general graphics workloads, the Radeon Pro 555 is the clear winner due to its support for DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the Tesla offers no display outputs and is a compute-only accelerator. The Radeon also consumes far less power at 75W compared to the Tesla’s 250W, making it suitable for integrated portable applications, while the Tesla requires a dual-slot cooler, a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector, and a 600W suggested power supply.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 has an average benchmark score of 13,407, which is 2.5% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla M2090’s average of 13,075.

Q: Does the Tesla M2090 support Vulkan?

A: No, the Tesla M2090 has no Vulkan API support listed, while the Radeon Pro 555 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Tesla M2090 has a memory bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s, while the Radeon Pro 555 has a bandwidth of 81.60 GB/s, making the Tesla’s bandwidth more than double.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Radeon Pro 555 has 768 shading units, whereas the Tesla M2090 has 512 shading units.

Q: How do the two cards compare in pixel fill rate?

A: The Tesla M2090 has a higher pixel rate at 20.83 GPixel/s, compared to the Radeon Pro 555’s 13.60 GPixel/s.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon Pro 555 and the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 are listed as end-of-life products, with release dates of June 2017 and July 2011, respectively.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The Radeon Pro 555 uses 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Tesla M2090 uses 512 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Memory configurations are starkly different: the Radeon has 2GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.60 GB/s bandwidth, while the Tesla has 6GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 177.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla’s memory clock is 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective), whereas the Radeon’s memory clock is 1275 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective).

Compute throughput numbers also diverge. The Radeon Pro 555 delivers 1,305.6 GFLOPS FP32 and an equal 1,305.6 GFLOPS FP16, while the Tesla M2090 delivers 1,332.2 GFLOPS FP32 and has no FP16 capability. Pixel rates are 13.60 GPixel/s for the Radeon versus 20.83 GPixel/s for the Tesla, while texture rates are 40.80 GTexel/s versus 41.66 GTexel/s, respectively. Power consumption is a major differentiator: the Radeon is rated at 75W with no power connectors, while the Tesla is rated at 250W with one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector and a suggested 600W power supply.

Physical and interface specifications differ as well. The Radeon Pro 555 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Tesla M2090 is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm (9.8 inches) in length, uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, and has no display outputs. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these GPUs is profound. The Radeon Pro 555 is built on AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture using the Polaris 21 chip, fabricated on a 14nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a die size of 123 mm², yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The Tesla M2090, by contrast, uses NVIDIA’s Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF110 chip, fabricated on a 40nm process at TSMC. It also contains 3,000 million transistors, but on a much larger 520 mm² die, giving a density of just 5.8M per mm².

The Radeon belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series) generation, while the Tesla belongs to the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation. The Tesla’s predecessor is listed as Tesla, and its successor is Tesla Kepler, indicating a clear generational line in NVIDIA’s compute lineup. The Radeon has no listed predecessor or successor. The Radeon supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a feature entirely absent from the Tesla, which only lists FP32 performance. The Tesla’s architecture is optimized for high-throughput compute with its wider memory bus and larger ROP count, while the Radeon’s architecture focuses on efficiency and modern API support, including Vulkan and full DirectX 12_0 features.

The process node difference is the most striking architectural factor: 14nm versus 40nm. This explains why the Radeon achieves a transistor density over four times higher than the Tesla, despite both chips having the same transistor count. The Radeon’s smaller die and lower power draw of 75W make it suitable for integrated use, while the Tesla’s larger die and 250W power draw require dedicated cooling and power delivery. The Tesla’s PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is older than the Radeon’s PCIe 3.0 x8, though the Tesla’s wider physical interface may offer different bandwidth characteristics in practice. Ultimately, these are two entirely different classes of hardware: one is a modern mobile graphics solution, and the other is a legacy compute accelerator.