NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 and the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 share the same underlying GF110 chip and Fermi 2.0 architecture, but they are engineered for entirely different purposes. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the GTX 570 winning the Geekbench OpenCL test by a margin of 3.4%. The GTX 570 scores 13,515 points against the Tesla M2090’s 13,075 points. This places the GTX 570 in the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla M2090 sits just one percentile lower at 53rd. The narrow score gap indicates that raw compute performance is closely matched, yet the architectural and feature differences between the two cards tell a more nuanced story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 570 edges out the Tesla M2090 with a score of 13,515 versus 13,075. This 3.4% delta is modest, suggesting that in a generic compute workload, the two cards perform nearly identically. The GTX 570’s advantage here is likely tied to its higher memory clock speed of 950 MHz (3.8 Gbps effective) compared to the Tesla M2090’s 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective). However, the Tesla M2090 counters with a wider 384-bit memory bus and 6 GB of VRAM, whereas the GTX 570 uses a 320-bit bus and 1,280 MB. The bandwidth figures reflect this: the Tesla M2090 delivers 177.4 GB/s, while the GTX 570 offers 152.0 GB/s, a 16.7% bandwidth advantage in favor of the Tesla.

When placing these scores in context, the GTX 570’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (13,536 points, 0.2% higher) and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT (13,543 points, 0.2% higher), showing that the GTX 570 is competitive with much newer hardware in this specific test. On the other side, the Tesla M2090’s rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986 points, 0.7% lower) and the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12,928 points, 1.1% lower), which the Tesla slightly outperforms. The delta percentages are small across the board, indicating that both cards sit in a performance cluster where wins are measured in single-digit percentage points.

The GTX 570 also holds a lead in pixel fill rate, achieving 21.96 GPixel/s versus the Tesla M2090’s 20.83 GPixel/s, a 5.4% difference. Texture fill rate similarly favors the GTX 570 at 43.92 GTexel/s versus 41.66 GTexel/s, a 5.4% edge. Conversely, the Tesla M2090 has more shading units (512 versus 480) and more texture mapping units (64 versus 60), yet its FP32 performance is lower at 1,332.2 GFLOPS versus the GTX 570’s 1,405.4 GFLOPS. This suggests the GTX 570 operates at a higher effective clock efficiency, despite the Tesla’s larger resource pool.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 scores 13,515 points, which is 3.4% higher than the Tesla M2090’s 13,075 points in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two cards?

A: The GTX 570 has 1,280 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus with 152.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Tesla M2090 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 177.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are the pixel and texture fill rates different?

A: Yes, the GTX 570 achieves 21.96 GPixel/s and 43.92 GTexel/s, while the Tesla M2090 achieves 20.83 GPixel/s and 41.66 GTexel/s, giving the GTX 570 a 5.4% advantage in both metrics.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 570 has a TDP of 219 W and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with 2x 6-pin power connectors, whereas the Tesla M2090 has a TDP of 250 W, a 600 W suggested PSU, and uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, and neither lists Vulkan support.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The GTX 570 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs, while the Tesla M2090 has no display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 570 wins in the only direct benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 3.4%. It also leads in pixel rate (21.96 GPixel/s vs. 20.83 GPixel/s) and texture rate (43.92 GTexel/s vs. 41.66 GTexel/s). These wins point toward the GTX 570 being better suited for tasks that rely on rasterization throughput, such as traditional gaming or graphics rendering at lower resolutions where memory capacity is less critical. Its higher FP32 performance (1,405.4 GFLOPS vs. 1,332.2 GFLOPS) reinforces this, suggesting a slight edge in compute-heavy shader workloads.

The Tesla M2090 wins in memory capacity (6 GB vs. 1,280 MB) and memory bandwidth (177.4 GB/s vs. 152.0 GB/s). This makes it the better choice for workloads that require large datasets to reside on the GPU, such as scientific simulations, data processing, or machine learning inference, where the 4.7x larger frame buffer prevents out-of-memory errors. The Tesla also has more shading units (512 vs. 480) and ROPs (48 vs. 40), which could help in parallel tasks that scale with core count, even if the clock speed differences negate some of that advantage. Its lack of display outputs confirms its role as a compute-only accelerator.

Specification Differences

The GTX 570 and Tesla M2090 differ in several key specifications beyond their benchmark scores. The GTX 570 has a memory clock of 950 MHz (3.8 Gbps effective), while the Tesla M2090 runs at 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective). Memory size differs drastically: 1,280 MB on the GTX 570 versus 6 GB on the Tesla M2090. The bus width is 320-bit for the GTX 570 and 384-bit for the Tesla, resulting in bandwidth of 152.0 GB/s versus 177.4 GB/s, respectively.

The shading unit count is 480 on the GTX 570 and 512 on the Tesla M2090. TMUs are 60 versus 64, and ROPs are 40 versus 48. Pixel rate is 21.96 GPixel/s for the GTX 570 and 20.83 GPixel/s for the Tesla, while texture rate is 43.92 GTexel/s versus 41.66 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,405.4 GFLOPS versus 1,332.2 GFLOPS. TDP is 219 W for the GTX 570 and 250 W for the Tesla. Power connectors are 2x 6-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin, and the suggested PSU is 550 W versus 600 W. The GTX 570 has display outputs, while the Tesla has none. Dimensions also differ: the GTX 570 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, and the Tesla is 248 mm (9.8 inches) long.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the GF110 chip using the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. They share the same transistor count of 3,000 million and die size of 520 mm², with a transistor density of 5.8M per mm². The GTX 570 belongs to the GeForce 500 generation, while the Tesla M2090 is part of the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation. Both use GDDR5 memory and support PCIe 2.0 x16.

The core count differences—480 shading units on the GTX 570 versus 512 on the Tesla—indicate that the Tesla has a larger compute resource, but its lower memory clock and FP32 output suggest it is not tuned for peak clock speeds. The GTX 570’s higher pixel and texture rates imply that it operates at a higher effective clock, despite having fewer resources. The Tesla’s 6 GB memory capacity and 384-bit bus are architectural choices for compute workloads that need large memory pools, whereas the GTX 570’s smaller 1,280 MB frame buffer is typical for a consumer graphics card. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, and neither lists Vulkan support. The Tesla M2090’s lack of display outputs is a defining architectural feature, marking it as a dedicated compute accelerator, while the GTX 570’s DVI and mini-HDMI outputs serve a graphics-focused role.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the GTX 570 is the better choice for users who need a general-purpose graphics card with some compute capability. It wins the OpenCL benchmark by 3.4%, offers higher pixel and texture rates, and includes display outputs for direct monitor connectivity. Its lower TDP of 219 W and smaller PSU requirement make it easier to integrate into a standard desktop system. The 1,280 MB memory is sufficient for gaming and moderate compute tasks, and its 54th percentile ranking shows it holds its own against a wide range of GPUs.

The Tesla M2090 is the better option for compute-focused environments where memory capacity is paramount. Its 6 GB frame buffer and 177.4 GB/s bandwidth allow it to handle datasets that would exceed the GTX 570’s limits. While it scores 3.4% lower in OpenCL, its 512 shading units and 48 ROPs provide a larger parallel resource pool that may be beneficial in specific workloads that are not memory-bandwidth-bound. The lack of display outputs, higher TDP of 250 W, and 600 W PSU requirement indicate it is designed for server or workstation installation, not desktop use. Its 53rd percentile ranking is nearly identical to the GTX 570, so raw performance is not the deciding factor—the choice comes down to memory capacity versus rasterization throughput.