NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 and the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 in an unusually close contest. Both are aging Fermi-architecture parts from NVIDIA, yet they occupy different corners of the market—one a consumer flagship, the other a compute-oriented accelerator. The benchmark results show a razor-thin margin between them, with the GTX 480 edging ahead in the single available test. This near-tie invites a closer look at what separates them beyond raw compute scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is remarkably tight. The GTX 480 scores 13,300, while the Tesla M2090 trails slightly at 13,075. That translates to a delta of just 1.7% in favor of the GTX 480. The GTX 480 claims the sole win in this head-to-head matchup, with a 1-0 record. For context, the GTX 480’s score places it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321) and 0.4% of both the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354) and AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356). The Tesla M2090, meanwhile, sits 0.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986) and 1.1% above the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12,928), but it also falls 0.9% short of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 (13,189).

The 1.7% difference between the two cards is almost noise-level in real-world terms, yet the data consistently places the GTX 480 in a slightly higher tier. Both cards land at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, meaning they outperform roughly half of the database’s tracked graphics processors. The GTX 480’s average benchmark score is 13,300, identical to its single-test result, while the Tesla M2090’s average is 13,075. Despite the Tesla having more shading units and a larger memory pool, the GTX 480’s higher pixel rate (21.03 GPixel/s vs. 20.83 GPixel/s) and texture rate (42.06 GTexel/s vs. 41.66 GTexel/s) suggest its architectural configuration is slightly more efficient for this particular OpenCL workload.

The deltaPct values against their nearest rivals tell a similar story. The GTX 480’s closest competitors are all AMD parts, and it trades blows within a fraction of a percent—never more than 0.6% away from any of them. The Tesla M2090’s nearest rivals include both NVIDIA and AMD cards, with deltas ranging from -0.9% (behind the GTX 950) to +1.1% (ahead of the RX 580). Curiously, the GTX 480 and Tesla M2090 are not listed as each other’s nearest rivals, despite their 1.7% gap being larger than several of the deltas to their respective neighbors. This suggests the database groups them by workload profile or generation rather than pure score proximity.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner for general compute tasks: the GeForce GTX 480. Its 1.7% lead in OpenCL performance, combined with a higher pixel rate and texture rate, gives it the edge in the only measured benchmark. For anyone comparing these two strictly on the numbers presented, the GTX 480 is the faster card. It also offers display outputs (2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a), making it usable in a desktop context, whereas the Tesla M2090 has no outputs at all—it is a dedicated compute card.

However, the verdict flips when memory capacity enters the picture. The Tesla M2090 packs 6 GB of GDDR5, quadruple the GTX 480’s 1,536 MB. The bandwidth is identical at 177.4 GB/s, and the bus width is the same 384-bit, so the Tesla’s advantage is purely capacity, not speed. For workloads that require large datasets to reside in VRAM—scientific simulations, large matrix operations, or big batch processing—the Tesla M2090 would be the only viable choice despite its slightly lower peak throughput. The GTX 480’s smaller frame buffer would force frequent data transfers, likely negating its 1.7% compute lead in memory-bound scenarios.

The production status of both is end-of-life, and both share the same TDP of 250 W, slot width (dual-slot), and power connector requirements (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin). The Tesla M2090 launched later (July 2011 vs. March 2010) and has no listed launch MSRP, while the GTX 480 launched at 499 USD. If a system already has the power delivery and physical space for either card, the choice comes down to whether the workload is memory-hungry or compute-hungry. The GTX 480 wins on raw compute; the Tesla M2090 wins on capacity.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 480 is the pick for tasks where raw compute throughput and rasterization rates matter most. Its 480 shading units, 60 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs drive a pixel rate of 21.03 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 42.06 GTexel/s—both slightly ahead of the Tesla. The GTX 480 also has a higher FP32 throughput at 1,345.0 GFLOPS versus the Tesla’s 1,332.2 GFLOPS. In OpenCL benchmarks, this translates to the 1.7% edge observed. The presence of display outputs means it can also drive a monitor, making it a usable fallback for a workstation that needs occasional graphics output.

The Tesla M2090 wins decisively on memory capacity. Its 6 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is four times larger than the GTX 480’s 1,536 MB. For compute workloads that load large models or datasets entirely into GPU memory, this is the differentiating factor. The Tesla also has more shading units (512 vs. 480) and more TMUs (64 vs. 60), yet it posts lower pixel and texture rates—20.83 GPixel/s and 41.66 GTexel/s—indicating those extra units are not fully utilized in the measured OpenCL test. The Tesla’s chip, GF110, is a revised Fermi design (Fermi 2.0) versus the GTX 480’s original GF100, but the benchmark does not reflect a significant architectural advantage. The Tesla’s lack of display outputs is a non-issue for a compute node, but it makes the card useless in a standalone desktop.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 scores 13,300, which is 1.7% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla M2090’s 13,075 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Tesla M2090 has 6 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 480 has 1,536 MB. Both use a 384-bit memory bus and achieve identical bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s.

Q: Are both cards from the same architecture generation?

A: No. The GTX 480 is based on the GF100 chip using the original Fermi architecture, while the Tesla M2090 uses the GF110 chip with Fermi 2.0 architecture. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 40 nm process.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Tesla M2090 has 512 shading units, compared to the GTX 480’s 480. The Tesla also has 64 texture mapping units versus 60 on the GTX 480.

Q: Can either card output video to a display?

A: Only the GTX 480 has display outputs—specifically 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The Tesla M2090 has no display outputs and is intended for compute-only use.

Q: What are the power requirements for these cards?

A: Both cards have a TDP of 250 W, require a dual-slot cooler, and use the same power connector configuration of 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin. NVIDIA recommends a 600 W power supply for each.

Architecture Differences

The two cards stem from the same Fermi family but diverge at the chip level. The GTX 480 uses the GF100 die, the original Fermi implementation, while the Tesla M2090 uses the GF110 die, which NVIDIA labels as Fermi 2.0. The transistor counts are nearly identical—3,100 million for the GF100 and 3,000 million for the GF110—as are the die sizes (529 mm² vs. 520 mm²). The resulting transistor densities are 5.9M per mm² for the GTX 480 and 5.8M per mm² for the Tesla. Both are built on TSMC’s 40 nm process, so the architectural refinements in Fermi 2.0 did not come from a node shrink.

The GF110 in the Tesla M2090 adds 32 shading units (512 vs. 480) and 4 TMUs (64 vs. 60), yet it produces lower pixel and texture rates. This suggests the extra units are offset by a slightly lower clock or different scheduling behavior, though the memory clock is identical at 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective). The GTX 480’s FP32 output of 1,345.0 GFLOPS exceeds the Tesla’s 1,332.2 GFLOPS, reinforcing that the GF100’s configuration is better tuned for peak compute in this test. Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as those technologies had not yet been introduced. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed.

Specification Differences

The most significant specification gap is memory capacity: the Tesla M2090 offers 6 GB GDDR5 versus the GTX 480’s 1,536 MB. Both run at 924 MHz memory clock (3.7 Gbps effective) on a 384-bit bus, yielding identical bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s. The shading unit count differs (512 on the Tesla vs. 480 on the GTX 480), as does the TMU count (64 vs. 60), while the ROP count is the same at 48. The pixel rate is 21.03 GPixel/s on the GTX 480 and 20.83 GPixel/s on the Tesla; the texture rate is 42.06 GTexel/s versus 41.66 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,345.0 GFLOPS for the GTX 480 and 1,332.2 GFLOPS for the Tesla.

Physical dimensions differ slightly: the GTX 480 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, while the Tesla M2090 is 248 mm (9.8 inches). Both are dual-slot cards with a 250 W TDP and require 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, with a recommended 600 W PSU. The GTX 480 has display outputs (2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI), while the Tesla has none. The GTX 480 was released on March 25, 2010, with a launch MSRP of 499 USD; the Tesla M2090 followed on July 24, 2011, with no launch MSRP listed. Both cards are end-of-life, and both use a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.