NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data splits these two NVIDIA parts along clear architectural and functional lines. The Tesla M2090, a Fermi 2.0 compute card from 2011, posts a single OpenCL score of 13,075, placing it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. The GeForce GTX 780M, a Kepler mobile chip from 2013, shows a broader benchmark profile: 8,319 in Metal, 12,769 in OpenCL, and 12,696 in Vulkan, with an average of 11,261 and a 50th percentile ranking. In the only direct head-to-head test, OpenCL, the Tesla wins by 2.4%, scoring 13,075 versus 12,769. However, that narrow margin does not tell the whole story.

For compute workloads that rely on raw FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth, the Tesla M2090 is the stronger option. Its 1,332.2 GFLOPS and 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth give it a measurable edge in the single benchmark where both are present. The GTX 780M, by contrast, offers a more balanced feature set for graphics-oriented tasks: it supports Vulkan 1.2.175, has display outputs (portable device dependent), and consumes far less power at 122 W versus 250 W. If the workload is OpenCL-centric and power or physical footprint is not a constraint, the Tesla wins. If the system requires a mobile form factor, modern API support, or lower power draw, the GTX 780M is the only choice. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a use-case split.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA generations and are built for different environments. The Tesla M2090 uses the GF110 chip on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm TSMC process. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.8M per mm². The GTX 780M uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm TSMC process. It integrates 3,540 million transistors into a smaller 294 mm² die, achieving a density of 12.0M per mm². The process shrink is substantial, and the density difference reflects that: Kepler packs nearly twice the transistors per area.

Core configuration differs significantly. The Tesla M2090 has 512 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 780M has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. That means the Kepler part has three times the shading units and double the texture units, but two-thirds the ROP count. The clock behavior also diverges: the Tesla has no listed base or boost clock, while the GTX 780M runs at 771 MHz base and 797 MHz boost. Memory clocks show 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective) for the Tesla and 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GTX 780M.

Memory configuration is another major split. The Tesla M2090 carries 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, achieving 177.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 780M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s. The Tesla has a wider bus and more capacity, but the GTX 780M has a higher effective memory clock. Pixel and texture rates favor the Kepler part: 25.50 GPixel/s and 102.0 GTexel/s versus 20.83 GPixel/s and 41.66 GTexel/s. FP32 compute flips back, however: the Tesla reaches 1,332.2 GFLOPS while the GTX 780M reaches 2.448 TFLOPS, which is 2,448 GFLOPS. That is a substantial raw compute advantage for the mobile card, though it does not translate into a win in the OpenCL benchmark.

Form factor and power draw are starkly different. The Tesla is a dual-slot card, 248 mm (9.8 inches) long, with 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. It has no display outputs. The GTX 780M is an MXM module with no power connectors, no suggested PSU figure, and display outputs described as portable device dependent. TDP tells the practical story: 250 W for the Tesla versus 122 W for the GTX 780M.

API support also differs. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 780M adds Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Tesla lists no Vulkan support. The GTX 780M also has a Metal benchmark result, which the Tesla lacks entirely. For modern graphics workloads, the Kepler part is clearly better equipped. The Tesla is a compute accelerator with no display path, while the GTX 780M is a mobile graphics solution with API breadth.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows exactly one direct comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The Tesla M2090 wins that test with 13,075 against 12,769, a 2.4% margin. That is a narrow victory, but it is consistent with the Tesla's 53rd percentile ranking versus the GTX 780M's 50th percentile. The Tesla also benefits from a wider memory bus (384-bit versus 256-bit) and higher bandwidth (177.4 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s), which helps in memory-bound compute tasks. Its 6 GB capacity versus 4 GB also gives it more headroom for large datasets.

The GTX 780M wins in every other measurable dimension. It has a higher pixel rate (25.50 versus 20.83 GPixel/s) and a much higher texture rate (102.0 versus 41.66 GTexel/s). Its FP32 throughput of 2.448 TFLOPS is roughly 84% higher than the Tesla's 1,332.2 GFLOPS. It supports Vulkan, which the Tesla does not, and it has a Metal score of 8,319, a test the Tesla never ran. Its power draw is less than half (122 W versus 250 W), and its MXM form factor makes it usable in portable systems. The GTX 780M also has a lower average benchmark score (11,261 versus 13,075), but that average is dragged down by the Metal result, which is a different API test.

For raw compute in a fixed installation, the Tesla is the pick. For graphics, mobile integration, API coverage, and efficiency, the GTX 780M is the pick. The data does not support using the Tesla in a system that needs display output, and it does not support using the GTX 780M in a workload that demands the Tesla's memory bus width.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13,075 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 12,769. The Tesla wins by 2.4%.

Q: Does the GTX 780M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GTX 780M lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support. The Tesla M2090 lists no Vulkan support.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla M2090 has 177.4 GB/s bandwidth from a 384-bit bus, while the GTX 780M has 160.0 GB/s from a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Tesla M2090 has a 250 W TDP, while the GTX 780M has a 122 W TDP. The GTX 780M draws less than half the power.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The GTX 780M reaches 2.448 TFLOPS, while the Tesla M2090 reaches 1,332.2 GFLOPS. The GTX 780M is roughly 84% higher.

Q: Can the Tesla M2090 output video to a display?

A: No, the Tesla M2090 has no display outputs. The GTX 780M has display outputs described as portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The Tesla M2090 posts 13,075, and the GTX 780M posts 12,769. The delta is 2.4%, with the Tesla taking the win. This is a close result, but it aligns with the percentile gap: the Tesla sits at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 780M sits at the 50th.

The nearest rivals for the Tesla put that score in context. The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER averages 12,986, which is 0.7% behind the Tesla. The GeForce GTX 950 averages 13,189, which is 0.9% ahead. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile averages 12,940, 1.0% behind, and the AMD Radeon RX 580 averages 12,928, 1.1% behind. The Tesla's OpenCL score is competitive with a range of desktop and mobile parts from later generations, despite its older architecture.

The GTX 780M's nearest rivals cluster around its average score of 11,261. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 averages 11,228, just 0.3% behind. The AMD FirePro W4300 averages 11,225, also 0.3% behind. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q averages 11,088, 1.6% behind, and the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q matches that, also 1.6% behind. Note that the GTX 780M's average includes its Metal and Vulkan results, which are lower than its OpenCL score, so the average understates its OpenCL performance.

The bigger wins for the GTX 780M are not in the direct comparison but in the broader capability set. Its texture rate of 102.0 GTexel/s is 2.45 times the Tesla's 41.66 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s is 22% higher than the Tesla's 20.83 GPixel/s. Its FP32 output of 2.448 TFLOPS dwarfs the Tesla's 1,332.2 GFLOPS. These are not benchmark scores, but they are recorded specifications that explain why the GTX 780M might perform better in texture-heavy or shader-heavy workloads, even though it loses the single OpenCL test.

The Tesla's wins are narrower but real. It has 6 GB of memory versus 4 GB, a 384-bit bus versus 256-bit, and 177.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 160.0 GB/s. It also has more ROPs: 48 versus 32. Those figures favor memory-intensive compute tasks. The Tesla's die is much larger at 520 mm² versus 294 mm², and its transistor count is lower at 3,000 million versus 3,540 million, which reflects the older process node.

In the recorded head-to-head, the Tesla wins the only test. The GTX 780M wins on architectural breadth, API support, and efficiency. The database shows one benchmark where the Tesla leads, and that is the benchmark that was actually run on both. The rest is specification-level analysis, where the GTX 780M leads in most categories.