NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward outcome for compute workloads measured by Geekbench OpenCL: the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 leads the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 by 11.6% in the sole head-to-head benchmark. The M2000 records a score of 14588 against the M2090's 13075. This is not a narrow margin; it is a decisive gap that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their shared manufacturer.

For anyone choosing between these two end-of-life products, the M2000 is the stronger option for general OpenCL compute tasks. Its higher average benchmark score of 14532 versus 13075 reinforces this conclusion. The M2090, while still functional, sits behind not only the M2000 but also several mainstream consumer graphics cards in the database's rankings. The M2000's percentile rank of 56 places it above the M2090's 53, meaning the M2000 outperforms a larger share of all GPUs tracked in the database.

The M2090 does retain advantages in raw memory capacity and bus width, which may matter for specific large-dataset workloads, but the benchmark evidence shows that the M2000's architectural efficiency overcomes those hardware disadvantages in measured compute performance. The M2000 also offers display outputs, making it usable in workstation environments where visual output is required, while the M2090 has no outputs at all.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Tesla M2090 uses the GF110 chip based on Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on the older 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process difference explains much of the performance gap: the M2000 packs 2,940 million transistors into a 228 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. The M2090 contains slightly more transistors at 3,000 million, but spread across a much larger 520 mm² die, resulting in only 5.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The M2000 achieves more than double the transistor density of the M2090.

The architectural generational gap is also visible in API support. The M2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The M2090 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded. This means the M2000 is compatible with modern graphics APIs while the M2090 is limited to older API levels.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The M2000 has defined base and boost clocks of 796 MHz and 1163 MHz respectively, while the M2090 has no recorded base or boost clock values in the database. The memory clocks also differ: the M2000 runs at 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective, while the M2090 runs at 924 MHz with 3.7 Gbps effective. The M2000's memory clock is substantially higher, contributing to its competitive bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14588 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13075. The M2000 leads by 11.6% in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Does the Tesla M2090 have any memory capacity advantage?

A: Yes, the M2090 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, versus the M2000's 4 GB on a 128-bit bus. The M2090 also has higher memory bandwidth at 177.4 GB/s compared to 105.8 GB/s.

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

A: No, the M2090 has no display outputs. The Quadro M2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it suitable for workstation display use.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The M2000 has a 75 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The M2090 has a 250 W TDP requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The Quadro M2000 supports Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla M2090 has no Vulkan support recorded in the database.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The M2000's average score of 14532 is 0.9% above the GeForce GTX 965M (14404) and 1% above the Radeon RX Vega 11 (14385), while being 1.1% below the Radeon RX 5500 XT (14692). The M2090's average score of 13075 is 0.7% above the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12986) and 1% above the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940), while being 0.9% below the GeForce GTX 950 (13189).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The M2000 uses the GM206 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture with a 28 nm process, while the M2090 uses the GF110 chip on Fermi 2.0 with a 40 nm process. The M2000 has 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, while the M2090 has 3,000 million on a 520 mm² die.

Memory configurations are notably different. The M2000 has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 105.8 GB/s bandwidth. The M2090 has 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 177.4 GB/s bandwidth. The M2090's bandwidth advantage is 67.6 GB/s, a 64% increase over the M2000.

Compute unit counts diverge. The M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The M2090 has 512 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the M2090 has more texture mapping units and raster operation units.

Clock speeds favor the M2000. Its base clock is 796 MHz with a boost of 1163 MHz, while the M2090 has no recorded clock values. Memory clocks also favor the M2000 at 1653 MHz versus 924 MHz.

The M2000 achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 37.22 GPixel/s and 55.82 GTexel/s respectively, versus the M2090's 20.83 GPixel/s and 41.66 GTexel/s. FP32 compute shows the M2000 at 1.786 TFLOPS versus the M2090 at 1,332.2 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs differ substantially. The M2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP. The M2090 is dual-slot, requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, and has a 250 W TDP. The M2000 is 201 mm long, while the M2090 is 248 mm. The M2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the M2090 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark between these cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro M2000 scores 14588, and the Tesla M2090 scores 13075. The M2000 wins with a delta of 11.6%. This is a substantial margin that indicates the M2000's architectural efficiency more than compensates for the M2090's wider memory bus and larger memory pool.

To contextualize this result, consider how each card performs against its nearest rivals. The M2000's average benchmark score of 14532 places it in a competitive cluster. It is 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 965M (14404) and 1% ahead of the Radeon RX Vega 11 (14385), but 1.1% behind the Radeon RX 5500 XT (14692). This means the M2000 sits right at the edge of a performance tier, trading blows with mid-range consumer GPUs from its era.

The M2090's average score of 13075 places it in a similar position relative to its own rivals. It is 0.7% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12986) and 1% ahead of the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940), but 0.9% behind the GeForce GTX 950 (13189). The M2090's performance cluster is roughly 10% lower than the M2000's cluster, which aligns with the 11.6% head-to-head delta.

The M2000 also has a second benchmark result: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 14475. This is nearly identical to its OpenCL score of 14588, suggesting consistent compute performance across APIs. The M2090 has no Vulkan benchmark recorded, so cross-API comparison is not possible.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M2000 wins in compute performance, as measured by the OpenCL benchmark. With an 11.6% lead over the M2090, the M2000 is the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks that rely on OpenCL. Its higher FP32 throughput of 1.786 TFLOPS versus 1,332.2 GFLOPS gives it a mathematical advantage in floating-point workloads. The M2000 also wins in pixel fill rate (37.22 GPixel/s versus 20.83 GPixel/s) and texture fill rate (55.82 GTexel/s versus 41.66 GTexel/s), which benefits graphics rendering tasks.

The M2000 also wins on practical deployment criteria. It consumes 75 W versus 250 W, needs no external power connectors, and fits in a single slot. Its suggested PSU of 250 W is far more accommodating than the M2090's 600 W requirement. The M2000's display outputs make it usable in interactive workstation environments, while the M2090 cannot drive a display. The M2000's support for Vulkan and DirectX 12 (12_1) also makes it more future-proof for modern software.

The Tesla M2090 wins in memory-related specifications. Its 6 GB capacity is 50% larger than the M2000's 4 GB. Its 384-bit bus is three times wider than the M2000's 128-bit bus. Its memory bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s is 68% higher than the M2000's 105.8 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound, such as very large datasets that exceed 4 GB, the M2090's memory advantages could be relevant. The M2090 also has more TMUs (64 versus 48) and more ROPs (48 versus 32), which could benefit certain texture-heavy or rasterization-heavy tasks.

The M2090's PCIe 2.0 interface is a limitation, but its larger memory pool may still appeal to specific scientific computing scenarios where dataset size exceeds the M2000's capacity. However, the benchmark evidence indicates that for the measured OpenCL workload, the M2000's compute efficiency wins decisively despite the M2090's memory advantages.