AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 records a score of 13,075, while the AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 11,063. The Tesla M2090 wins this head-to-head by 18.2%, a substantial margin that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their similar shading unit counts.

Looking at the broader context, the Tesla M2090's OpenCL result places it at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER at 12,986 (only 0.7% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 580 at 12,928 (1.1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at 12,940 (1% behind). The only adjacent card that scores higher is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 at 13,189, which is 0.9% ahead. This clustering suggests the Tesla M2090 sits in a well-populated performance band where small percentage differences separate many cards.

The Radeon RX 550, by contrast, records an average benchmark score of 11,075 across all its tests, placing it at the 50th percentile. Its nearest rival on the upside is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER at 11,047, which the RX 550 leads by a narrow 0.3%. On the downside, the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225, which is 1.3% ahead of the RX 550. The two NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 variants listed as rivals both score 11,088, essentially tied with the RX 550 at 0.1% differences. The RX 550's OpenCL score of 11,063 is its second-best recorded result, behind its Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,270 and far behind its Geekbench Metal score of 20,838, though the Metal result reflects a different API environment.

The head-to-head data shows the Tesla M2090 leading by a clear margin in OpenCL, and the win count reflects that: the Tesla M2090 takes 1 win, the RX 550 takes 0. The 18.2% delta is significant enough that no amount of driver tuning or workload selection would plausibly close the gap in this specific test.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13,075, which is 18.2% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 550's 11,063 in the same test.

Q: How does the Tesla M2090 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Tesla M2090 is 0.7% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, 1% ahead of the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, and 1.1% ahead of the RX 580, while sitting 0.9% behind the GeForce GTX 950.

Q: What is the Radeon RX 550's best recorded benchmark result?

A: The RX 550's highest score in the database is 20,838 in Geekbench Metal, followed by 12,270 in Geekbench Vulkan and 11,063 in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of overall percentile ranking?

A: The Tesla M2090 sits at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon RX 550 sits at the 50th percentile.

Q: Is the RX 550 competitive with any of the Tesla M2090's rivals?

A: The RX 550's average score of 11,075 is 0.3% ahead of the GTX 1650 SUPER and 1.3% behind the FirePro W4300, but it does not appear in the Tesla M2090's rival list, indicating the two cards compete in different performance neighborhoods.

Q: What is the RX 550's performance relative to the Tesla M2090 in non-OpenCL tests?

A: The database does not include a shared non-OpenCL test between the two cards, so no direct comparison is possible for Vulkan, Metal, or DX12 workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla M2090 wins the only directly comparable benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 18.2%. This makes it the clear choice for compute workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration. Its position at the 53rd percentile, surrounded by cards like the GTX 1660 SUPER and RX 580, indicates it delivers middle-of-the-pack compute performance even by modern standards.

The Radeon RX 550 has no head-to-head wins against the Tesla M2090, but its benchmark profile shows different strengths. Its Geekbench Metal score of 20,838 is by far its best result, suggesting strong performance in Apple-centric or Metal-optimized environments. Its Vulkan score of 12,270 is also respectable, and the card supports Vulkan 1.3, which the Tesla M2090 does not list. For users running Vulkan-based applications, the RX 550 offers API support that the older Tesla simply lacks.

The RX 550 also wins on practical deployment scenarios. Its 50 W TDP and lack of power connectors mean it can run in systems with a 250 W suggested PSU, whereas the Tesla M2090 requires a 600 W PSU and both a 6-pin and 8-pin connector. The RX 550's 145 mm length fits in compact cases, while the Tesla M2090 stretches to 248 mm. For multi-display setups, the RX 550 provides DVI, HDMI 2.0b, and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Tesla M2090 has no display outputs at all.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The Tesla M2090 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 550 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s. Memory clock rates also differ: the Tesla runs at 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective), while the RX 550 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), though the Tesla's wider bus compensates for the lower clock speed.

Shading unit counts are identical at 512, but the rest of the pipeline differs. The Tesla M2090 has 64 texture mapping units and 48 render output units, while the RX 550 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 20.83 GPixel/s for the Tesla versus 18.93 GPixel/s for the RX 550, and a texture rate of 41.66 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the Tesla delivers 1,332.2 GFLOPS against the RX 550's 1,211.4 GFLOPS. The RX 550 also lists FP16 performance at 1,211.4 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Tesla M2090 has no FP16 listing.

Power requirements diverge sharply. The Tesla M2090 has a 250 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU and requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU and requires no power connectors. Physical dimensions also differ: the Tesla is 248 mm long, the RX 550 is 145 mm long, and both are dual-slot cards.

Bus interface and display outputs separate them further. The Tesla uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and has no display outputs. The RX 550 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support shows the RX 550 as the more modern card: it supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Tesla lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan support. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is generational. The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 uses the GF110 chip built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 520 mm² and contains 3,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 5.8 million per mm². The RX 550 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die measures 103 mm² and contains 2,200 million transistors, yielding a density of 21.4 million per mm². The RX 550's die is roughly one-fifth the physical size of the Tesla's, yet it packs over two-thirds of the transistor count, a direct consequence of the smaller process node.

The generation labels confirm the gap: the Tesla belongs to the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation, released in July 2011, while the RX 550 belongs to the Polaris (RX 500) generation, released in April 2017. The Tesla's predecessor is listed as Tesla and its successor as Tesla Kepler. The RX 550's predecessor is Arctic Islands and its successor is Vega.

The Fermi architecture was designed for high-performance compute with a focus on FP32 throughput, which explains the Tesla's 512 shading units and 1,332.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. The GCN 4.0 architecture in the RX 550 was designed for efficiency and modern API support, which explains its 1:1 FP16 ratio and Vulkan 1.3 compatibility. The RX 550 also includes modern display outputs and a 14 nm process, while the Tesla's 40 nm process and lack of display outputs reflect its compute-only heritage as a server accelerator.

The transistor density difference is stark: 21.4M per mm² for the RX 550 versus 5.8M per mm² for the Tesla. This architectural evolution allowed AMD to deliver comparable compute performance in a card that consumes 50 W instead of 250 W, occupies less than half the length, and requires no auxiliary power connectors.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split. For raw OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 is the stronger card. Its 13,075 OpenCL score beats the RX 550's 11,063 by 18.2%, and its 53rd percentile ranking places it among modern mid-range cards like the GTX 1660 SUPER and RX 580. Users who need maximum FP32 throughput in OpenCL workloads, and who have the power delivery and chassis space to accommodate a 250 W dual-slot card with a 600 W PSU requirement, should choose the Tesla M2090.

The AMD Radeon RX 550 is the better choice for a different set of priorities. Its 50 W TDP, lack of power connectors, 145 mm length, and 250 W PSU requirement make it suitable for small form factor systems and upgrades to pre-built machines with limited power budgets. Its display outputs enable multi-monitor setups, which the Tesla cannot support at all. Its Vulkan 1.3 support and DirectX 12 (12_0) compliance make it the more future-proof option for modern gaming and API-specific workloads. The Geekbench Metal score of 20,838 indicates strong performance in Metal environments, though the Tesla has no comparable Metal result in the database.

There is no single winner across all criteria. The Tesla M2090 wins the only shared benchmark and offers higher memory capacity (6 GB versus 2 GB) and bandwidth (177.4 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s). The RX 550 wins on power efficiency, physical footprint, display connectivity, and API modernity. The Tesla is an end-of-life compute accelerator from 2011; the RX 550 is an end-of-life consumer card from 2017. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload demands OpenCL compute throughput or practical deployment flexibility. The benchmark data favors the Tesla for compute; the specification data favors the RX 550 for everyday use.