AMD Radeon Pro 555X vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro 555X vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090

The AMD Radeon Pro 555X and NVIDIA Tesla M2090 represent two very different approaches to GPU design, separated by seven years of architectural evolution. The data shows a surprisingly close contest, with the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 edging ahead in the only directly comparable benchmark, yet the two cards achieve their results through fundamentally different means. The Radeon Pro 555X is a modern, power-efficient mobile part, while the Tesla M2090 is a compute-focused accelerator from the Fermi era with a massive die and high power draw.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a narrow victory for the NVIDIA Tesla M2090. The Tesla scores 13,075 against the Radeon Pro 555X's 12,628, a delta of -3.4% from the AMD card's perspective. This means the Tesla M2090 outperforms the Radeon Pro 555X by roughly 3.4% in this single compute-oriented test. While the margin is slim, it is a genuine win for the older Fermi architecture.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the Radeon Pro 555X has three additional data points. Its Geekbench Metal score is 14,479, its Geekbench Vulkan score is 12,855, and its OpenCL result is the 12,628 mentioned above. The average benchmark score across all tests for the AMD card is 13,321. The Tesla M2090, with only an OpenCL result, has an average score of 13,075. This means the Radeon Pro 555X holds a roughly 1.9% advantage in average benchmark score across all available tests, even though it lost the single direct comparison.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story of near-parity. The Radeon Pro 555X sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla M2090 sits at the 53rd percentile. The AMD card's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 (average score 13,300, delta 0.2%), the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354, -0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, -0.3%), and the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376, -0.4%). The Tesla M2090's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986, 0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 (13,189, -0.9%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940, 1%), and the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12,928, 1.1%). Both cards are clustered in a tight performance band, with the Radeon Pro 555X slightly ahead in average terms.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is enormous. The Radeon Pro 555X uses the Polaris 21 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The Tesla M2090 uses the GF110 chip built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The process node difference alone—14 nm versus 40 nm—explains much of the efficiency gap. The Radeon Pro 555X packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The Tesla M2090 also has 3,000 million transistors, but spread across a 520 mm² die, giving a density of just 5.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The Fermi chip is over four times larger physically, yet contains the identical transistor count.

The shader configurations diverge significantly. The Radeon Pro 555X has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The Tesla M2090 has 512 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Despite fewer shading units, the Tesla's higher TMU and ROP counts help it compete in certain workloads. The pixel rate favors the Tesla at 20.83 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s for the Radeon, a 43.6% advantage. The texture rates are nearly identical: 43.54 GTexel/s for the AMD card and 41.66 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card, a difference of only 4.5% in AMD's favor. FP32 performance is also close, with the Radeon Pro 555X delivering 1,393.2 GFLOPS versus 1,332.2 GFLOPS for the Tesla, a 4.6% edge for AMD. Notably, the Radeon Pro 555X supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with the same 1,393.2 GFLOPS, while the Tesla M2090 has no FP16 capability listed.

Memory subsystems are markedly different. The Radeon Pro 555X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 94.08 GB/s bandwidth with memory clocked at 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective). The Tesla M2090 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, achieving 177.4 GB/s bandwidth with memory at 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective). The Tesla's memory bandwidth is 88.6% higher, reflecting its compute-oriented design where memory throughput is critical. The AMD card compensates with faster effective memory clock speed, but the narrower bus limits overall bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 wins in raw compute throughput as measured by the OpenCL benchmark, and it has clear advantages in memory capacity (6 GB vs 4 GB) and memory bandwidth (177.4 GB/s vs 94.08 GB/s). Its higher pixel rate (20.83 GPixel/s) and greater TMU and ROP counts suggest it handles fill-rate-bound workloads better. The Tesla also supports DirectX 12 (11_0), though this is a lower feature level than the Radeon's 12_0.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555X wins in average benchmark score across all tests, driven by strong Metal and Vulkan results that the Tesla cannot match—the Tesla has no Vulkan support listed and no Metal benchmark score. The Radeon also has higher FP32 throughput (1,393.2 GFLOPS vs 1,332.2 GFLOPS), higher texture rate, FP16 support, and a much more modern feature set including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0). Its 14 nm process yields dramatically better efficiency: 75 W TDP versus 250 W for the Tesla. The Radeon is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors, while the Tesla requires dual-slot cooling and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 600 W.

For portable devices, the Radeon Pro 555X's form factor is decisive—it is an IGP with "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, meaning it is designed for laptops or all-in-one systems. The Tesla M2090 has no display outputs at all, making it strictly a compute accelerator. The Tesla's 248 mm (9.8 inches) length further confirms its server-oriented design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555X delivers 1,393.2 GFLOPS, which is 4.6% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla M2090's 1,332.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Why does the Tesla M2090 win the OpenCL benchmark despite lower FP32?

A: The Tesla M2090 scores 13,075 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 12,628 for the Radeon Pro 555X, a 3.4% margin. This likely reflects its 88.6% higher memory bandwidth (177.4 GB/s vs 94.08 GB/s) and greater ROP count (48 vs 16), which benefit memory-intensive compute workloads.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 555X support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 555X supports Vulkan 1.3 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,855. The Tesla M2090 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between these two chips?

A: The Radeon Pro 555X has a density of 24.4 million transistors per mm² on its 123 mm² die, while the Tesla M2090 has 5.8 million transistors per mm² on its 520 mm² die. Both contain 3,000 million transistors.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Radeon Pro 555X has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, while the Tesla M2090 has a TDP of 250 W and needs 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors with a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla M2090 has 177.4 GB/s bandwidth from its 384-bit bus and 6 GB GDDR5, versus 94.08 GB/s from the Radeon Pro 555X's 128-bit bus and 4 GB GDDR5.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 555X | NVIDIA Tesla M2090 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 520 mm² |

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

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 94.08 GB/s | 177.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 48 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.51 GPixel/s | 20.83 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 43.54 GTexel/s | 41.66 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,393.2 GFLOPS | 1,332.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,393.2 GFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| TDP | 75 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 600 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

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

| Vulkan | 1.3 | None |

| Release Date | 2018-07-15 | 2011-07-24 |

| Predecessor | None | Tesla |

| Successor | None | Tesla Kepler |

The Verdict

The data paints a picture of two GPUs that achieve similar benchmark outcomes through opposite design philosophies. The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 wins the sole head-to-head OpenCL test and offers superior memory capacity and bandwidth, making it the choice for compute workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound. Its higher pixel rate and ROP count also favor fill-rate-heavy tasks. However, its 250 W TDP, dual-slot design, and lack of display outputs restrict it to server or workstation environments where power and space are not constraints.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555X, despite losing the direct OpenCL comparison, has a higher average benchmark score (13,321 vs 13,075) thanks to strong Metal and Vulkan performance. It offers modern API support, FP16 capability, higher FP32 and texture rates, and dramatically better efficiency at 75 W. Its IGP form factor makes it suitable for portable devices, and its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is newer than the Tesla's PCIe 2.0 x16.

For users needing a compute accelerator with maximum memory bandwidth in a server context, the Tesla M2090's 177.4 GB/s and 6 GB capacity are compelling, and its 3.4% OpenCL win demonstrates real capability. For anyone needing a versatile, efficient GPU for a laptop or all-in-one system with modern API support and competitive compute performance, the Radeon Pro 555X is the data-supported choice. The near-parity in average scores (54th vs 53rd percentile) suggests that in most real-world tasks, the user experience would be similar—but the Radeon delivers it at a fraction of the power and physical footprint.