AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single direct head-to-head benchmark between the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, and it is a decisive one. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT scores 48,289, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 manages 13,075. This translates to a delta of -72.9% for the Tesla, meaning the AMD card is roughly 3.7 times faster in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload. The margin is not close; it is a generational gap expressed in a single metric.

The Tesla M2090's score of 13,075 places it at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER at 12,986 (a 0.7% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 at 13,189 (a -0.9% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at 12,940 (a 1% difference), and the AMD Radeon RX 580 at 12,928 (a 1.1% difference). This clustering shows that the Tesla M2090, despite its age and server-oriented design, occupies a performance tier that is still relevant for compute tasks, sitting within 1.1% of several mainstream consumer graphics cards from later generations.

The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, with its Geekbench OpenCL score of 48,289, sits at the 51st percentile overall. Its nearest rivals in the database are quite different in nature: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 scores 11,960 (a -1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998 (a -1.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 scores 11,680 (a 1.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT scores 11,627 (a 1.9% delta). The RX 6500 XT's average benchmark score across all its recorded tests is 11,842, which is lower than its OpenCL score alone, indicating that its performance varies significantly across different workloads. This variance is a key characteristic to investigate.

The head-to-head result is stark, but it only tells part of the story. The Tesla M2090 wins zero benchmarks in the direct comparison, while the RX 6500 XT wins one. However, the database contains additional benchmark results for the RX 6500 XT that are not available for the Tesla M2090, including Vulkan, DirectX, and Passmark tests. These additional data points allow for a more nuanced understanding of where the AMD card excels and where its architecture imposes limitations.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT wins the only direct comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 72.9% margin. Beyond that, the database reveals its strengths in several other areas. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 54,724, which is even higher than its OpenCL score. This suggests the RDNA 2.0 architecture is particularly well-suited to modern graphics APIs that expose lower-level hardware control. Its Passmark G3D score is 9,608, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 4,456, indicating solid performance in both rasterization and compute-oriented tasks. The DirectX 9 score of 108, DirectX 11 score of 90, and DirectX 10 score of 60 show a pattern where older DirectX versions yield progressively lower scores, likely reflecting driver optimization priorities.

The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 has no recorded wins. Its single benchmark score, the Geekbench OpenCL result of 13,075, places it in a tight cluster with mid-range consumer GPUs from the GTX 16 series and RX 500 series era. The data implies that the Tesla M2090's strengths, if any, do not manifest in the OpenCL workload that the database uses for comparison. Its architecture, Fermi 2.0, was designed for high-performance computing and scientific workloads, not necessarily for the consumer-oriented benchmarks that dominate the database. The lack of additional benchmark data for the Tesla means its potential in other areas, such as double-precision floating point or memory-intensive tasks, is not captured by these measurements.

The wins for the RX 6500 XT are not uniform. Its Passmark DirectX 12 score is only 38, which is significantly lower than its DirectX 11 score of 90. This is an unusual inversion, as newer APIs typically perform better on newer hardware. The low DirectX 12 score, combined with the high Vulkan score, suggests that the RX 6500 XT's performance is highly dependent on the specific API and workload characteristics. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 235 is also modest, indicating that while the card can handle compute-heavy OpenCL and Vulkan tasks, its raw rasterization throughput in certain scenarios may be limited by its memory subsystem or driver maturity.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast and explains the benchmark results. The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 uses the GF110 chip on a 40 nm process from TSMC, with 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.8 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT uses the Navi 24 chip on a 6 nm process, also from TSMC, with 5,400 million transistors on a much smaller 107 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. This represents a nearly nine-fold increase in density, allowing AMD to pack more functionality into a smaller area.

The memory configurations are equally divergent. The Tesla M2090 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 143.9 GB/s. While the Tesla has a wider bus and slightly higher bandwidth, the RX 6500 XT uses faster memory with an effective data rate of 18 Gbps compared to the Tesla's 3.7 Gbps. The RX 6500 XT also features 16 ray tracing cores, a capability entirely absent from the Fermi-based Tesla. The shading unit counts differ: the Tesla has 512 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, while the RX 6500 XT has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6500 XT's pixel rate is 90.08 GPixel/s versus the Tesla's 20.83 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 180.2 GTexel/s versus 41.66 GTexel/s.

The FP32 compute figures tell a similar story. The RX 6500 XT delivers 5.765 TFLOPS, while the Tesla M2090 delivers 1,332.2 GFLOPS (approximately 1.33 TFLOPS). The RX 6500 XT also supports FP16 at 11.53 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the Tesla lacks entirely. The process node difference from 40 nm to 6 nm is a primary driver of these gains, but the architectural evolution from Fermi to RDNA 2.0 is equally important. The RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla M2090 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. The Tesla uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the RX 6500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x4, which has implications for bandwidth but also for system compatibility.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous about raw performance: the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is far ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, with a 72.9% margin. The RX 6500 XT's additional benchmark scores in Vulkan and Passmark tests further demonstrate its superiority in modern workloads. However, the Tesla M2090's score of 13,075 places it in the 53rd percentile, while the RX 6500 XT's average score of 11,842 places it in the 51st percentile. This inversion, where the Tesla's single score is higher than the RX 6500 XT's average across multiple tests, indicates that the RX 6500 XT's performance is inconsistent. The Tesla M2090, despite being older and based on a far less advanced process node, maintains a consistent level of compute performance that rivals mid-range consumer cards from several years later.

For users seeking maximum compute throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 6500 XT is the clear choice. Its 48,289 OpenCL score and 54,724 Vulkan score are multiples of the Tesla's capabilities. However, for scenarios that require consistent performance across a narrow set of compute tasks, the Tesla M2090's stability in the 13,000 range may be adequate. The RX 6500 XT's low DirectX 12 score of 38 and modest 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 235 suggest that its strengths are not universal. The Tesla M2090 has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for any interactive graphics work, while the RX 6500 XT offers HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Tesla also requires a 600 W suggested PSU and dual power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin), while the RX 6500 XT needs only a 300 W PSU and a single 6-pin connector.

The verdict from the database is straightforward: if the workload is OpenCL compute and modern API support matters, the RX 6500 XT wins decisively. If the workload is legacy compute with specific driver requirements and the system can accommodate the Tesla's power and interface needs, the M2090 remains a viable option, but it is not competitive in the measured benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT scores 48,289, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13,075, resulting in a 72.9% delta favoring the AMD card.

Q: Does the Tesla M2090 win any benchmarks?

A: No. In the database, the Tesla M2090 has zero recorded wins, while the RX 6500 XT wins the sole head-to-head test.

Q: How does the RX 6500 XT perform in Vulkan compared to OpenCL?

A: The RX 6500 XT scores 54,724 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 48,289.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The Tesla M2090 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 177.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 143.9 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Tesla M2090 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Tesla M2090 has no ray tracing cores, while the RX 6500 XT has 16.

Q: What are the process node and transistor density differences?

A: The Tesla M2090 uses a 40 nm process with 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die (5.8M per mm²). The RX 6500 XT uses a 6 nm process with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die (50.5M per mm²).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla M2090 | AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT |

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

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 5,400 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.8M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | N/A | 2310 MHz |

| Boost Clock | N/A | 2815 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 2610 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 924 MHz / 3.7 Gbps effective | 2248 MHz / 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 143.9 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 64 | 64 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| RT Cores | N/A | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.83 GPixel/s | 90.08 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.66 GTexel/s | 180.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,332.2 GFLOPS | 5.765 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | N/A | 11.53 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 107 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2011-07-24 | 2022-01-18 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 199 USD |