NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single directly comparable benchmark between these two cards, and the result is emphatic. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 60,740 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 manages 13,075 points. That represents a 364.6% advantage for the RTX 3050 OEM, a margin that dwarfs any other comparison in the surrounding data.

To put that score into context, the RTX 3050 OEM's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 15,199, placing it in the 57th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (15,171, a 0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon 680M (15,270, a -0.5% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15,283, a -0.5% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (15,290, a -0.6% delta). The RTX 3050 OEM sits in a dense pack where these four competitors are all within a 0.8% band of each other, meaning its aggregate performance is essentially indistinguishable from that cluster.

The Tesla M2090, by contrast, has only one benchmark entry: the same Geekbench OpenCL test where it recorded 13,075. Its average benchmark score is identical, 13,075, and it sits in the 53rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986, a 0.7% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 (13,189, a -0.9% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940, a 1% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12,928, a 1.1% delta). The Tesla M2090 is therefore positioned within a similarly tight grouping, with all four rivals within a 1.1% spread.

The head-to-head delta of 364.6% is not merely a win; it is a generational chasm. The RTX 3050 OEM's OpenCL output is more than 4.6 times that of the Tesla M2090. No other pairing in the nearest-rival tables approaches this magnitude. Even the widest gaps among the rival clusters, such as the 1.1% delta between the Tesla M2090 and the AMD Radeon RX 580, are trivial by comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 OEM wins the only shared benchmark, which makes the case for it clear in compute workloads. Its OpenCL performance of 60,740 is the standout number in the entire comparison, and it also carries a broader benchmark suite that includes PassMark DirectX 10 (61), DirectX 11 (86), DirectX 12 (58), DirectX 9 (137), G2D (973), G3D (11,857), and GPU compute (5,779). These additional tests cover rasterization, compute, and 2D workloads, giving the RTX 3050 OEM a multi-faceted profile that the Tesla M2090 simply does not have in the database.

The Tesla M2090 has no wins in any recorded benchmark. Its single OpenCL score of 13,075 is the only data point available, and it loses that contest decisively. However, the Tesla M2090's strengths lie elsewhere in its specification sheet, not in benchmark results. It offers a 384-bit memory bus, which is three times wider than the RTX 3050 OEM's 128-bit interface, and its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while smaller in capacity, is paired with a higher pixel rate relative to its compute class. The Tesla M2090 also draws from a different design philosophy: it has no display outputs, indicating a compute-focused role, whereas the RTX 3050 OEM ships with HDMI and DisplayPort outputs for consumer use.

For use cases, the data suggests that the RTX 3050 OEM is the pick for anyone needing OpenCL compute performance in a consumer context, as well as for DirectX 11 and 12 workloads where its PassMark scores of 86 and 58 respectively provide measurable performance. The Tesla M2090, with no DirectX 12 support (it lists DirectX 12 (11_0) in its API set) and no Vulkan support, is limited to older API paths. Its OpenGL 4.6 support matches the RTX 3050 OEM, but its lack of Vulkan is a notable gap for modern cross-platform workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different eras of NVIDIA's design roadmap. The RTX 3050 OEM uses the GA106 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. It packs 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The Tesla M2090, in contrast, uses the GF110 chip from the Fermi 2.0 architecture, built on TSMC's 40 nm process. It contains 3,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 520 mm² die, giving a density of only 5.8M per mm². The density difference, roughly 7.5 times in favor of the RTX 3050 OEM, reflects the massive process node leap between 40 nm and 8 nm.

The memory subsystems tell a similar story. The RTX 3050 OEM uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla M2090 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 177.4 GB/s. Despite having three times the bus width, the Tesla M2090's slower memory clock (924 MHz base, 3.7 Gbps effective versus the RTX 3050 OEM's 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective) means it falls behind in raw bandwidth. The RTX 3050 OEM's memory clock is roughly 3.8 times faster in effective terms, which more than compensates for the narrower bus.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The RTX 3050 OEM has 2,304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, along with 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores. Its FP32 throughput is 8.087 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is identical at 8.087 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Tesla M2090 has 512 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor cores. Its FP32 output is 1,332.2 GFLOPS, which is roughly 6.1 times lower than the RTX 3050 OEM's FP32 figure. The pixel rate is 56.16 GPixel/s for the RTX 3050 OEM versus 20.83 GPixel/s for the Tesla M2090, and the texture rate is 126.4 GTexel/s versus 41.66 GTexel/s.

Power and connectivity also differ. The RTX 3050 OEM has a TDP of 130 W with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Tesla M2090 has a TDP of 250 W, requires a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The RTX 3050 OEM uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Tesla M2090 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The RTX 3050 OEM offers display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the Tesla M2090 has none. The RTX 3050 OEM supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Tesla M2090 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 60,740 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13,075, a 364.6% advantage for the RTX 3050 OEM.

Q: How does the RTX 3050 OEM compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM's average benchmark score is 15,199. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7600, scores 15,171 (a 0.2% delta), and the AMD Radeon 680M scores 15,270 (a -0.5% delta). All four nearest rivals are within a 0.6% band.

Q: Does the Tesla M2090 support modern APIs like Vulkan?

A: No. The Tesla M2090 lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support. The RTX 3050 OEM supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the Tesla M2090 has 177.4 GB/s from 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has 2,304 shading units, compared to the Tesla M2090's 512 shading units.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has a density of 43.5M transistors per mm² on an 8 nm process, while the Tesla M2090 has 5.8M transistors per mm² on a 40 nm process.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for any compute-focused buyer. The RTX 3050 OEM outperforms the Tesla M2090 in the only shared benchmark by 364.6%, and it does so while consuming less power (130 W versus 250 W), using a smaller die (276 mm² versus 520 mm²), and offering modern features like ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and Vulkan support. The RTX 3050 OEM also provides display outputs, making it a functional consumer card, whereas the Tesla M2090 is a compute-only accelerator with no display connectivity.

The Tesla M2090's remaining advantages are structural rather than practical. Its 384-bit memory bus and 48 ROPs exceed the RTX 3050 OEM's 128-bit bus and 32 ROPs, but the memory bandwidth is still lower overall, and the ROP count does not translate into benchmark wins. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory is smaller than the RTX 3050 OEM's 8 GB of GDDR6, and its lack of Vulkan support limits its software ecosystem.

For users choosing between these two, the RTX 3050 OEM is the appropriate pick for OpenCL compute, DirectX 11 and 12 workloads, and any task requiring modern API support. The Tesla M2090 is only relevant in legacy compute environments where its Fermi architecture and PCIe 2.0 interface are acceptable, and even then, its single benchmark score places it below the RTX 3050 OEM by a wide margin. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the RTX 3050 OEM sits at the 57th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla M2090 sits at the 53rd. The gap in raw performance, process technology, and feature set makes the RTX 3050 OEM the definitive choice in this comparison.