NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN has an average benchmark score of 14373, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13075. This places the GTX TITAN 9.9% higher overall.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX TITAN sits in the 56th percentile, while the Tesla M2090 is in the 53rd percentile. Both are close, but the TITAN is slightly better positioned in the database.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the GTX TITAN based on average score?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (avg score 14385, delta -0.1%), AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14352, delta 0.1%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14404, delta -0.2%), and Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14315, delta 0.4%). The TITAN is essentially level with these.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Tesla M2090?

A: The closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950, with an average score of 13189, putting it 0.9% above the M2090. Other rivals include the GTX 1660 SUPER (12986, delta 0.7%), RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940, delta 1%), and AMD Radeon RX 580 (12928, delta 1.1%).

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX TITAN scores 24873, while the Tesla M2090 scores 13075, giving the TITAN a 90.2% lead in this single head-to-head benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX TITAN has 2688 shading units, whereas the Tesla M2090 has 512, a substantial difference in raw compute capacity.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations entirely. The GTX TITAN uses the GK110 chip built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Tesla M2090 uses the GF110 chip based on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture, also made by TSMC but on a larger 40 nm node. This process difference is significant: the GTX TITAN packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The Tesla M2090, by comparison, has 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, for a density of just 5.8M per mm². The Kepler design is clearly more efficient in packing transistors.

The shading unit counts differ dramatically. The TITAN has 2688 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The M2090 has only 512 shading units, 64 TMUs, and the same 48 ROPs. This means the TITAN has more than five times the shader count, which directly impacts compute workloads. The clock speeds also differ: the TITAN runs at a base of 836 MHz with a boost of 876 MHz, while the M2090 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. The memory clock differs as well, with the TITAN using 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the M2090's 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystems share the same size and bus width: both have 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit interface. However, the resulting bandwidth is not equal: the TITAN achieves 288.4 GB/s, while the M2090 reaches 177.4 GB/s. The TITAN's higher memory clock drives this advantage. The pixel rate and texture rate follow the same pattern: the TITAN delivers 49.06 GPixel/s and 196.2 GTexel/s, while the M2090 manages 20.83 GPixel/s and 41.66 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rating for the TITAN is 4.709 TFLOPS, versus 1,332.2 GFLOPS for the M2090, which is roughly 3.5 times less.

Both cards are end-of-life products with a dual-slot form factor and the same 250 W TDP, plus identical power connectors (1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin) and a suggested 600 W PSU. The bus interface differs: the TITAN uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the M2090 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are another major split: the TITAN has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the M2090 has no display outputs at all, reflecting its compute-only design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the GTX TITAN scores 24873 against the Tesla M2090's 13075. That is a delta of 90.2% in favor of the TITAN, meaning the TITAN nearly doubles the M2090's score. This is a decisive win, and it aligns with the architectural differences: the TITAN has far more shading units, higher clocks, and greater memory bandwidth.

Looking at the broader context, the TITAN's average score of 14373 places it just 0.1% above the AMD Radeon Vega 11 and 0.2% below the GTX 965M. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, is only 0.1% ahead. The TITAN is effectively in a tight cluster of mid-range GPUs from a later era. Meanwhile, the M2090's average score of 13075 puts it 0.9% below the GTX 950 and 1% above the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile. The M2090 is also within 1.1% of the RX 580. This suggests that despite its age, the M2090 remains competitive with much newer entry-level cards.

The single OpenCL result may underrepresent the TITAN's advantage in other workloads, but it is the only head-to-head data available. The 90.2% delta is substantial and consistent with the hardware specifications. The TITAN wins the only recorded benchmark, giving it a 1-0 lead in head-to-head wins.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The process node is a clear differentiator: 28 nm for the TITAN versus 40 nm for the M2090. Transistor counts are 7,080 million versus 3,000 million, and die sizes are 561 mm² versus 520 mm². The transistor density tells the story of architectural efficiency: 12.6M per mm² versus 5.8M per mm².

The clock speeds are not directly comparable because the M2090 lacks a recorded base or boost clock. However, the memory clocks differ: the TITAN runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective). The memory size is identical at 6 GB, and both use GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, but the bandwidth is 288.4 GB/s versus 177.4 GB/s.

The compute resources are vastly different. The TITAN has 2688 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the M2090 has 512 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The pixel rate is 49.06 GPixel/s versus 20.83 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 196.2 GTexel/s versus 41.66 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 4.709 TFLOPS versus 1,332.2 GFLOPS.

Both cards have a 250 W TDP, dual-slot width, and the same power connectors. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the TITAN versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the M2090. The display outputs are a major difference: the TITAN has four outputs, while the M2090 has none. The physical dimensions also differ: the TITAN is 267 mm long, 111 mm high, and 38 mm wide, while the M2090 is shorter at 248 mm, with no recorded height or width.

The API support shows some overlap. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The TITAN supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the M2090 has no Vulkan support listed. The release dates are far apart: the TITAN launched on 2013-02-18, and the M2090 on 2011-07-24. The TITAN has a recorded launch MSRP of 999 USD, while the M2090 has none.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX TITAN wins in every category where data exists. Its OpenCL score is 90.2% higher, its FP32 compute is over three times higher, its memory bandwidth is 62.5% higher, and its pixel and texture rates are more than double. It also has superior connectivity with PCIe 3.0 and display outputs, making it a more flexible card. For general-purpose computing, gaming, or any workload that can use its 2688 shading units, the TITAN is the clear choice.

The Tesla M2090 does not win any benchmark in the database, but it has strengths in specific contexts. Its 6 GB memory capacity matches the TITAN, which is useful for large datasets. Its 48 ROPs are equal to the TITAN's, so raster operations are not a bottleneck. The M2090 also shares the same 250 W TDP and power connector layout, meaning it can fit into similar power envelopes. For compute-only environments where display output is not needed, the M2090's lack of outputs is not a disadvantage. Its lower transistor density and older architecture suggest it may be simpler to integrate into legacy systems, and its shorter length of 248 mm could fit in more compact chassis.

However, the data does not support any performance win for the M2090. It is slower in every measured metric. The M2090's niche would be as a drop-in replacement for systems designed around Fermi compute cards, where the PCIe 2.0 interface and no-output design are acceptable. But even then, the TITAN offers more raw compute per watt, as both draw the same 250 W.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN is the superior GPU. It wins the sole head-to-head test by 90.2%, and its average score of 14373 is 9.9% higher than the M2090's 13075. The TITAN's architecture is newer, denser, and more powerful across every specification that matters for compute performance. Its 4.709 TFLOPS FP32 rating dwarfs the M2090's 1,332.2 GFLOPS, and its 288.4 GB/s bandwidth outperforms the M2090's 177.4 GB/s.

For users who need a GPU that can handle a mix of compute and display workloads, the TITAN is the only option with display outputs. For pure compute tasks, the TITAN still wins on performance, but the M2090's equal memory size and identical power draw mean it could serve as a low-cost compute card in legacy systems. The M2090's 53rd percentile and closeness to newer cards like the GTX 950 and RX 580 show it is not obsolete, but it is outclassed by the TITAN.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the GTX TITAN for any workload where performance matters. The Tesla M2090 only makes sense in a system that specifically requires a Fermi-based compute card with no display outputs, and even then the performance gap is too large to ignore. The database records one win for the TITAN and zero for the M2090, and the specifications confirm that result. The TITAN is the better investment, assuming both are available at similar prices, though the M2090's lack of a launch MSRP makes direct cost comparison impossible from the data alone.