NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 vs NVIDIA Tesla K10 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 and the NVIDIA Tesla K10 occupy opposite ends of the GPU timeline, and the recorded data makes the gap unmistakable. One is an active, 5 nm Blackwell 2.0 gaming flagship; the other is an end-of-life Kepler-era compute card built on a 28 nm process. Despite the enormous hardware divide, their database percentiles sit closer than the raw specs would suggest, at 59 for the RTX 5090 D V2 and 55 for the Tesla K10, though the two cards were measured on different benchmark tests, which limits direct comparison. What follows is a field-by-field analysis of how these two NVIDIA products differ.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared head-to-head benchmark results for this pairing, and each card's wins counter against the other stands at zero. That is itself informative: these products were never run through a common test suite in the recorded data, so cross-comparison must be handled carefully.

The RTX 5090 D V2's single recorded result is a 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12) score of 16504, which anchors its average benchmark score of 16504 and its 59th percentile placement against all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals cluster remarkably tightly around it: the NVIDIA T400 averages 16508 for a delta of 0 percent, the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 sits 0.5 percent behind at 16415, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell averages 16408 for a 0.6 percent gap, and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT trails by 0.9 percent at 16361. In other words, on this metric the RTX 5090 D V2 leads a band of competitors separated by less than a single percentage point.

The Tesla K10's lone recorded result is a Geekbench OpenCL score of 14029, matching its average score of 14029 and a percentile of 55. Its rival set is similarly compressed: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 scores 14150, putting the K10 0.9 percent behind, while the AMD Radeon RX 570X averages 13871 (1.1 percent behind the K10), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile sits at 13821 (1.5 percent back), and the AMD Radeon 660M at 13812 (1.6 percent back). The K10 therefore beats three of its four nearest rivals on this metric while conceding a narrow loss to the GTX 680.

Comparing the two cards' raw scores directly would be methodologically unsound, since Steel Nomad and Geekbench OpenCL are different workloads on different scales. The percentile figures, 59 versus 55, are the closest thing to a normalized comparison the database offers, and they suggest the two are far more comparable in relative standing within their respective measurement contexts than their specifications imply.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these cards spans more than a decade of NVIDIA design. The Tesla K10 uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture, a member of the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation that succeeded Tesla Fermi and was itself succeeded by Tesla Maxwell. It was fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process, packing 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die for a density of 12.0M per mm². The RTX 5090 D V2 uses the GB202 chip on Blackwell 2.0, part of the GeForce 50 series that followed GeForce 40 and precedes GeForce 60. Also built at TSMC, it moves to a 5 nm process with 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, yielding a density of 122.9M per mm², roughly ten times the K10's transistor density.

The execution resource counts scale accordingly. The K10 offers 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RTX 5090 D V2 multiplies that out to 21760 shading units, 680 TMUs, and 176 ROPs. More consequential than raw counts is the presence of dedicated accelerators: the K10 has no RT cores and no tensor cores, while the 5090 D V2 carries 170 RT cores and 680 tensor cores, hardware classes that simply did not exist in the Kepler era.

Clock behavior also differs in kind. The K10's base and boost clocks are unrecorded in the database, with only its memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) listed. The 5090 D V2 has a defined 2017 MHz base and 2407 MHz boost, with memory running at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective).

Feature support diverges sharply at the API level. The 5090 D V2 targets DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K10 supports DirectX 12 at the 11_0 feature level, OpenGL 4.6, and an older Vulkan 1.2.175. The 5090 D V2 also brings modern display connectivity with one HDMI 2.1b and three DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, whereas the K10 has no display outputs at all, consistent with its compute-card role. Bus interface differs too: PCIe 5.0 x16 on the Blackwell card versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Kepler part.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 5090 D V2, by a wide margin. It provides 1.34 TB/s of bandwidth from 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 384-bit bus. The Tesla K10 delivers 160.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Do the two cards support ray tracing?

A: Only the RTX 5090 D V2 does, with 170 RT cores and 680 tensor cores. The Tesla K10 has neither RT cores nor tensor cores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RTX 5090 D V2 has a 575 W TDP, a single 16-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 950 W. The Tesla K10 has a 225 W TDP, one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector, and a suggested PSU of 550 W. Both are dual-slot cards.

Q: Which FP32 throughput is higher?

A: The RTX 5090 D V2 reaches 104.8 TFLOPS FP32, with FP16 at the same 104.8 TFLOPS (1:1). The Tesla K10 manages 2.289 TFLOPS FP32, and its FP16 figure is not recorded.

Q: Are either of these cards still in production?

A: The RTX 5090 D V2 is listed as active, with a release date of August 2025. The Tesla K10 is end-of-life, released in April 2012.

Q: How do their physical sizes compare?

A: The RTX 5090 D V2 measures 304 mm long, 137 mm tall, and 48 mm wide. The Tesla K10 is 272 mm (10.7 inches) long; its height and width are not recorded.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of use cases. For any workload that benefits from modern feature support, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, ray tracing hardware, tensor cores, and massive memory bandwidth, the RTX 5090 D V2 is the only viable option of the two. Its 24 GB of GDDR7 and 1.34 TB/s of bandwidth dwarf the K10's 4 GB and 160.0 GB/s, and its throughput figures, 104.8 TFLOPS FP32, 423.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 1,636.8 GTexel/s texture rate, stand against the K10's 2.289 TFLOPS, 23.84 GPixel/s, and 95.36 GTexel/s.

The K10's case rests on practicality rather than performance. It is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP, a 550 W suggested PSU, and a 272 mm length, making it far less demanding to host than the 575 W, 950 W-PSU, 304 mm Blackwell flagship. Its percentile of 55 on Geekbench OpenCL, narrowly ahead of three of its four nearest rivals, indicates it remains a functional compute part within its measurement context. Both cards carry their launch MSRPs in the database, 2,299 USD for the RTX 5090 D V2 and 5,099 USD for the Tesla K10.

One caveat applies throughout: the two cards were benchmarked on different tests, Steel Nomad for one, Geekbench OpenCL for the other, with zero head-to-head results recorded. Buyers comparing them directly should rely on the specification deltas, which are unambiguous, rather than the scores.

Specification Differences

• Chip: GB202 (RTX 5090 D V2) vs GK104 (Tesla K10)
• Architecture: Blackwell 2.0 vs Kepler
• Generation: GeForce 50 vs Tesla Kepler (Kxx)
• Process node: 5 nm vs 28 nm (both TSMC)
• Transistors: 92,200 million vs 3,540 million
• Die size: 750 mm² vs 294 mm²
• Transistor density: 122.9M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²
• Base clock: 2017 MHz vs not recorded
• Boost clock: 2407 MHz vs not recorded
• Memory clock: 1750 MHz, 28 Gbps effective vs 1250 MHz, 5 Gbps effective
• Memory: 24 GB GDDR7 vs 4 GB GDDR5
• Bus width: 384 bit vs 256 bit
• Bandwidth: 1.34 TB/s vs 160.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 21760 vs 1536
• TMUs: 680 vs 128
• ROPs: 176 vs 32
• RT cores: 170 vs none
• Tensor cores: 680 vs none
• Pixel rate: 423.6 GPixel/s vs 23.84 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 1,636.8 GTexel/s vs 95.36 GTexel/s
• FP32: 104.8 TFLOPS vs 2.289 TFLOPS
• FP16: 104.8 TFLOPS (1:1) vs not recorded
• TDP: 575 W vs 225 W
• Power connectors: 1x 16-pin vs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 950 W vs 550 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b vs none
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2.175
• Length: 304 mm vs 272 mm
• Height: 137 mm vs not recorded
• Width: 48 mm vs not recorded
• Production status: Active vs End-of-life
• Release date: August 2025 vs April 2012
• Launch MSRP: 2,299 USD vs 5,099 USD
• Average benchmark score: 16504 (3DMark Steel Nomad) vs 14029 (Geekbench OpenCL)
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 59 vs 55