AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head comparison between the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, and it is a decisive win for the older Tesla part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Tesla M2090 scores 13,075 points against the Radeon Pro WX 3200's 11,228 points. That is a 16.4% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a substantial gap in a compute-oriented workload. The Tesla M2090 wins the only recorded benchmark, giving it a 1-0 record in direct comparisons.

The score difference is not a marginal edge. A 16.4% delta in OpenCL performance suggests that the Tesla M2090 is not merely faster, but meaningfully more capable in raw compute throughput. When placed against the broader field, the Tesla M2090 sits at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 lands at the 50th percentile. Both cards are midfield performers, but the NVIDIA part punches slightly higher.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card clarifies the context. The Tesla M2090's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, which scores 12,986 points, a 0.7% delta from the Tesla. The Tesla also edges out the GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940 points, 1% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12,928 points, 1.1% delta). The only nearby card that beats it is the GeForce GTX 950, scoring 13,189 points, a -0.9% delta from the Tesla's perspective. So the Tesla M2090 is bracketed by a tight cluster of modern and near-modern GPUs, all within about a point or two of each other in percentage terms.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200, by contrast, has a slightly weaker peer group. Its nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W4300, which scores 11,225 points, a 0% delta. The GeForce GTX 780M scores 11,261 points, a -0.3% delta from the WX 3200. Two NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 variants, the Blackwell Max-Q and the Blackwell Max-Q D, both score 11,088 points, representing a 1.3% delta. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 sits at the top of this particular cluster, but the cluster itself is lower than the Tesla's cluster. The data indicates that the Tesla M2090 outperforms the WX 3200 by a margin that is consistent across their respective rival groups.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras and philosophies. The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, using the GF110 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Polaris 23 chip, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference is significant: 40 nm versus 14 nm, a generational leap in manufacturing technology that allows the AMD chip to pack more transistors into a much smaller area.

The transistor counts reflect this. The Tesla M2090 has 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, which works out to 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD card is far denser, nearly four times the transistor density of the NVIDIA part, despite having fewer total transistors. This density advantage is typical of the newer process node.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The Tesla M2090 offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla has nearly double the memory bandwidth, a critical factor for compute workloads that stream large datasets. The Radeon's memory clock is listed at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Tesla's memory clock is 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective). The Tesla compensates for its lower clock speed with a much wider bus.

Compute resources tell a mixed story. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Tesla M2090 has 512 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The AMD card has more shaders, but the NVIDIA card has more TMUs and three times the ROPs. In terms of raw rates, the Tesla achieves a pixel rate of 20.83 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 41.66 GTexel/s. The Radeon posts 20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s. These are nearly identical numbers, which is remarkable given the architectural differences. The FP32 compute, however, favors the AMD card: 1.658 TFLOPS versus the Tesla's 1,332.2 GFLOPS. The Radeon also supports FP16 at 1.658 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Tesla has no FP16 capability listed.

Other differences matter for deployment. The Tesla M2090 is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W power supply, plus a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a single-slot card with a 65 W TDP, a suggested 250 W power supply, and no power connectors. The Radeon is dramatically more power-efficient and physically smaller. The Tesla has no display outputs, while the Radeon has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 in the recorded OpenCL test by 16.4%. If compute performance is the sole criterion, the Tesla M2090 is the stronger card. Its score of 13,075 places it in a competitive range with modern GPUs like the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER and the Radeon RX 580, while the WX 3200's 11,228 score aligns it with older or lower-tier parts like the FirePro W4300 and GeForce GTX 780M.

However, the data also reveals a trade-off. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 delivers its performance at a fraction of the power draw: 65 W versus 250 W. It is a single-slot card with no external power connectors, making it far easier to integrate into compact systems. The Tesla M2090 is a dual-slot card with a 600 W suggested power supply, a substantial system requirement. For environments where power and space are constrained, the Radeon is the practical choice, even if it loses on raw compute.

The Radeon also has a clear feature advantage in display outputs. It offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the Tesla has no outputs at all. For any workload that requires driving monitors, the Tesla is simply not an option. The Radeon also supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. The Radeon's FP16 capability at a 1:1 ratio is another feature the Tesla lacks.

For compute-focused tasks where power consumption is not a primary concern, the Tesla M2090 is the better performer according to the data. For general-purpose use, power-sensitive deployments, or any display-oriented application, the Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the more versatile card despite its lower score.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13,075 points, which is 16.4% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200's 11,228 points.

Q: How does the power consumption compare between the two cards?

A: The Tesla M2090 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W suggested power supply, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W and a 250 W suggested power supply.

Q: Can either card output video to a display?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Tesla M2090 has no display outputs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Tesla M2090 provides 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth on a 384-bit bus, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 provides 96.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports FP16 compute?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 supports FP16 at 1.658 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Tesla M2090 has no FP16 capability listed.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of physical size?

A: The Tesla M2090 is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm in length. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a single-slot card measuring 167 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 wins in raw compute performance. The 16.4% OpenCL advantage is the headline number, and it is supported by the card's superior memory bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The Tesla also has a wider memory bus at 384 bits, which benefits large data transfers. In compute-heavy tasks that are not power-limited, the Tesla M2090 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its pixel rate and texture rate are also marginally higher: 20.83 GPixel/s versus 20.72 GPixel/s, and 41.66 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s. These are small differences, but they favor the Tesla.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins in efficiency and flexibility. Its 65 W TDP is less than a third of the Tesla's 250 W TDP, and it requires no external power connectors. It is a single-slot card, making it suitable for dense or small-form-factor systems. The Radeon has a higher FP32 compute rate at 1.658 TFLOPS versus 1,332.2 GFLOPS, and it offers FP16 support that the Tesla lacks. The Radeon's display outputs and modern API support, including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), make it a more complete product for general use. The Radeon also uses a newer 14 nm process with higher transistor density, which contributes to its efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The Tesla M2090 uses the GF110 chip on a 40 nm process at TSMC, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses Polaris 23 on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Tesla has 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die with a density of 5.8M/mm². The Radeon has 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die with a density of 21.4M/mm².

Memory specifications diverge: the Tesla has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 177.4 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective). The Radeon has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Compute unit counts differ: the Tesla has 512 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Radeon has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates are close but not identical: the Tesla posts 20.83 GPixel/s and 41.66 GTexel/s, while the Radeon posts 20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s. FP32 performance favors the Radeon at 1.658 TFLOPS versus 1,332.2 GFLOPS for the Tesla. The Radeon also lists FP16 at 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Tesla has no FP16 figure.

Power and physical specifications are starkly different: the Tesla has a 250 W TDP, dual-slot width, a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector setup, and a 600 W suggested PSU. The Radeon has a 65 W TDP, single-slot width, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and has no display outputs. The Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The Tesla measures 248 mm in length, while the Radeon measures 167 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

API support also differs: the Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan listed. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The release dates are far apart: the Tesla was released in July 2011, and the Radeon was released in July 2019. The Tesla's generation is listed as "Tesla Fermi (x20xx)", while the Radeon's is "Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200)". The Radeon has a launch MSRP of 199 USD.