NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 vs NVIDIA Tesla M4 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 represent two distinct interpretations of the same underlying GPU philosophy, separated by three years of architectural evolution. The GTX 690 is a dual-GPU flagship from the Kepler era, designed to deliver maximum desktop performance, while the Tesla M4 is a single-GPU, power-efficient compute accelerator from the Maxwell 2.0 generation. Despite their different roles, benchmark data places them in remarkably close proximity, with the GTX 690 averaging 17,037 points across tests and the Tesla M4 averaging 16,932 points. This puts both cards at the 60th percentile of all GPUs, a statistical tie that masks significant differences in how they achieve their results.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 690 holds the sole head-to-head victory in the available benchmark data. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 690 scores 17,399 points against the Tesla M4's 16,932 points, a 2.8% margin. This win is consistent with the GTX 690's overall benchmark profile, which includes a secondary Vulkan score of 16,675 points, bringing its average to 17,037. The GTX 690's advantage here stems from its dual GK104 chips operating at a base clock of 915 MHz with a boost of 1019 MHz, delivering a combined 3.130 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The card's 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs provide substantial parallel processing capacity, further enhanced by a 256-bit memory bus that yields 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth.

The Tesla M4, by contrast, offers no benchmark victories in this comparison, but its losses are narrow. Its single OpenCL score of 16,932 trails the GTX 690 by only 2.8%, a margin that falls within the noise of typical benchmark variance. The M4 achieves this with a single GM206 chip running at 872 MHz base and 1072 MHz boost, producing 2.195 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs are fewer than the GTX 690, and its 128-bit memory bus limits bandwidth to 88.00 GB/s. Where the M4 compensates is in efficiency and capacity: it packs 4 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the GTX 690's 2 GB, and its 50 W TDP is a fraction of the GTX 690's 300 W draw. This power disparity means the M4 can sustain compute workloads in environments where the GTX 690 would be impractical, even if raw benchmark scores favor the older card.

The data suggests a clear split: for pure OpenCL throughput, the GTX 690 wins outright, but the M4's architectural advantages in memory capacity and power efficiency position it for workloads where those factors matter more than raw score. The GTX 690's dual-chip design also introduces potential driver and scaling complexities that the M4's monolithic architecture avoids, though the benchmark data does not directly quantify this.

The Verdict

For users prioritizing maximum compute throughput in an OpenCL context, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 is the data-backed choice. Its 17,399 OpenCL score leads the Tesla M4 by 2.8%, and its average benchmark score of 17,037 places it 0.6% ahead of the M4's 16,932 average. The GTX 690 also sits within 1% of the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (17,083) and within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (17,208), indicating it competes with far more modern hardware despite its 2012 release. Its dual GK104 chips provide 3.130 TFLOPS of FP32 power, and the 192.3 GB/s memory bandwidth supports data-intensive operations that the M4's 88.00 GB/s cannot match.

However, the Tesla M4 is the logical selection for deployment scenarios constrained by power and physical footprint. Its 50 W TDP requires only a 250 W suggested power supply, and its single-slot design with no display outputs makes it suitable for dense server installations. The GTX 690, in contrast, demands a 300 W TDP, a 700 W suggested PSU, dual 8-pin power connectors, and a dual-slot footprint measuring 279 mm in length. The M4's 4 GB memory capacity also doubles the GTX 690's 2 GB, which is critical for models or datasets that exceed the smaller frame buffer. For compute tasks that fit within the GTX 690's 2 GB limit, the older card wins on speed; for tasks that require larger working sets or operate under strict power budgets, the M4's architecture is superior.

The verdict is not a blanket recommendation but a conditional one. The GTX 690 is the faster card in raw benchmark terms, but the M4 offers a 4 GB memory advantage, a 250 W reduction in power draw, and a single-slot form factor. Users with adequate power and space who need maximum OpenCL performance should select the GTX 690. Users deploying in power-constrained or multi-GPU environments where memory capacity and efficiency take precedence should select the Tesla M4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 posts a score of 17,399 against the Tesla M4's 16,932. This 2.8% delta is modest but consistent across the two cards' broader benchmark averages. The GTX 690's average score of 17,037 includes its Vulkan result of 16,675, which is lower than its OpenCL score but still above the M4's single OpenCL score. This internal consistency suggests the GTX 690's advantage is not a benchmark artifact but a genuine performance edge.

The margin translates to specific hardware differences. The GTX 690's 1536 shading units outnumber the M4's 1024 by 50%, and its 128 TMUs double the M4's 64. The GTX 690's texture rate of 130.4 GTexel/s is nearly double the M4's 68.61 GTexel/s, and its FP32 throughput of 3.130 TFLOPS exceeds the M4's 2.195 TFLOPS by 42.6%. The GTX 690 also benefits from a 256-bit memory bus delivering 192.3 GB/s versus the M4's 128-bit bus at 88.00 GB/s, a 118.5% bandwidth advantage. Yet the M4 counters with a higher boost clock (1072 MHz vs 1019 MHz) and a higher pixel rate (34.30 GPixel/s vs 32.61 GPixel/s), indicating that single-chip efficiency partially offsets the GTX 690's raw resource advantage.

The nearest rival data contextualizes this head-to-head. The GTX 690's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 7970M, which scores 17,019 and trails by just 0.1%. The Tesla M4's closest rival is also the HD 7970M, which leads it by 0.5%. This means both cards sit in a tight performance cluster where the GTX 690 and M4 are separated by less than the margin between either card and its adjacent rivals. The GTX 690 is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT and 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, while the M4 is 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA T400 4 GB and 0.9% behind the RX 7600 XT. These deltas indicate that the GTX 690's 2.8% head-to-head win over the M4 is the largest gap between any two adjacent cards in their combined rival sets, reinforcing the significance of the GTX 690's victory.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 averages 17,037 points across its two benchmarks, while the NVIDIA Tesla M4 averages 16,932 points from its single OpenCL result. The GTX 690 leads by 0.6%.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two cards?

A: The Tesla M4 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the GTX 690's 2 GB. However, the GTX 690 uses a 256-bit bus for 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the M4's 128-bit bus provides 88.00 GB/s.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The GTX 690 has a 300 W TDP and requires a 700 W suggested power supply with dual 8-pin connectors. The Tesla M4 has a 50 W TDP and requires only a 250 W suggested power supply with no external power connectors.

Q: Which card supports more advanced graphics APIs?

A: The Tesla M4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 690 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The GTX 690 was released on 2012-05-02, and the Tesla M4 was released on 2015-11-09.

Q: Which card is more efficient in terms of transistor density?

A: The Tesla M4's GM206 chip has a transistor density of 12.9 million transistors per square millimeter, slightly higher than the GTX 690's GK104 at 12.0 million per square millimeter, despite the M4 having fewer total transistors (2,940 million vs 3,540 million).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs embody different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The GeForce GTX 690 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, while the Tesla M4 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM206 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The GTX 690's GK104 contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Tesla M4's GM206 packs 2,940 million transistors onto a 228 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. This density improvement reflects the architectural efficiency gains of Maxwell over Kepler.

The compute resources diverge significantly. The GTX 690 fields 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the M4 offers 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 690's dual-chip design effectively doubles the shading and texture resources of a single GK104, but the M4's single GM206 compensates with higher boost clocks (1072 MHz vs 1019 MHz) and a superior pixel rate (34.30 GPixel/s vs 32.61 GPixel/s). The memory subsystems differ in philosophy: the GTX 690 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus for 192.3 GB/s, whereas the M4 uses 4 GB across a 128-bit bus for 88.00 GB/s.

API support reveals the generational gap. The GTX 690 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), indicating feature-level 11_0 capabilities, while the M4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) with the full feature set. The M4's Vulkan support extends to version 1.4, compared to the GTX 690's 1.2.175. The physical designs are equally divergent: the GTX 690 is a 279 mm dual-slot card with 3x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort outputs, while the M4 is a single-slot card with no display outputs, reflecting its compute-only purpose. The GTX 690 requires 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 700 W PSU, whereas the M4 draws power solely from its PCIe slot and needs only a 250 W PSU. The GTX 690's 300 W TDP versus the M4's 50 W TDP is the starkest architectural consequence, representing a 6x difference in power consumption for a 42.6% difference in FP32 throughput. This efficiency gap, alongside the memory capacity difference, defines the practical choice between these two end-of-life accelerators.