NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile and the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear generational gulf, with the modern Ampere-based mobile part delivering dramatically higher benchmark scores while consuming significantly less power than the older Fermi-based compute accelerator. This comparison highlights how far GPU technology has advanced, not just in raw throughput, but in efficiency and feature set.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile in the only shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX A2000 Mobile scores 56,518 points compared to the Tesla M2090's 13,075 points. This represents a 332.3% advantage for the newer card, meaning it delivers more than four times the performance in this compute workload.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile packs 43.5 million transistors per mm², while the Tesla M2090 has just 5.8 million per mm². This is a direct result of the manufacturing process difference: the RTX A2000 Mobile uses an 8 nm process from Samsung, whereas the Tesla M2090 uses TSMC's 40 nm process.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile features 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla M2090 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a wider 384-bit bus, but offers slightly less bandwidth at 177.4 GB/s.

Q: Does the Tesla M2090 support modern graphics APIs like the RTX A2000 Mobile?

A: No. The RTX A2000 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla M2090 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of power consumption and physical design?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 95 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The Tesla M2090 is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP, requiring a 600 W power supply and using 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, and it measures 248 mm in length.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 13,821 and sits in the 55th percentile of all GPUs. The Tesla M2090 has an average score of 13,075 and is in the 53rd percentile. This makes the RTX A2000 Mobile the stronger performer overall.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile is the superior product for virtually any use case. Its 332.3% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test demonstrates a massive performance advantage in compute workloads. Furthermore, the RTX A2000 Mobile achieves this with a 95 W TDP, less than half the power draw of the Tesla M2090's 250 W TDP, and in a compact IGP form factor that doesn't require external power connectors. The Tesla M2090's only advantages are its larger 6 GB memory capacity and wider 384-bit memory bus, but these do not translate into higher bandwidth (177.4 GB/s vs 192.0 GB/s) or better benchmark scores.

For users seeking a modern, efficient, and feature-rich GPU for a laptop or portable workstation, the RTX A2000 Mobile is the clear choice. It supports modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Tesla M2090 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacks Vulkan support entirely. The Tesla M2090 is a legacy compute accelerator from 2011, and while its 6 GB of memory might be useful for specific large datasets, its overall performance and feature set are outdated. The RTX A2000 Mobile is the only sensible pick for anyone building a new system, while the Tesla M2090 should only be considered for legacy applications or specialized compute tasks that require its specific memory configuration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively in favor of the RTX A2000 Mobile. The A2000 scores 56,518 points, while the M2090 manages just 13,075 points. This yields a delta of 332.3%, meaning the A2000 is approximately four and a half times faster in this test. This massive margin reflects the combined improvements in architecture, clock speeds, and memory technology. The A2000's FP32 compute power is listed at 8.637 TFLOPS, which is over six times the M2090's 1,332.2 GFLOPS, and this raw compute advantage is clearly visible in the benchmark results.

Beyond this single test, the average benchmark scores paint a similar picture. The RTX A2000 Mobile has an average score of 13,821 across all its benchmark entries, placing it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 660M, scores 13,812, a difference of just 0.1%. In contrast, the Tesla M2090's average score is 13,075, putting it in the 53rd percentile. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, which scores 12,986, a 0.7% difference. While the M2090's average score is respectable for its era, it is still roughly 5.4% lower than the A2000's average, showing that even the A2000's "worst" results are competitive with the M2090's best. The A2000 also shows strength in specific DirectX tests, with scores of 115 in DirectX 9 and 68 in DirectX 11, though these have no direct comparison in the M2090's limited benchmark suite.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in almost every measurable specification. The RTX A2000 Mobile is built on an 8 nm process, while the Tesla M2090 uses a 40 nm process. This leads to a massive difference in transistor counts: the A2000 has 8,700 million transistors crammed into a 200 mm² die, whereas the M2090 has 3,000 million on a much larger 520 mm² die. The clock speeds also tell a story of progress. The A2000 has a base clock of 1215 MHz and a boost clock of 1687 MHz, while the M2090 has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective). The A2000's memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

The compute resources are starkly different. The RTX A2000 Mobile features 2,560 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. It also includes 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Tesla M2090, which has only 512 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This results in a pixel rate of 80.98 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 135.0 GTexel/s for the A2000, versus 20.83 GPixel/s and 41.66 GTexel/s for the M2090. The FP32 performance is 8.637 TFLOPS for the A2000, while the M2090 is rated at 1,332.2 GFLOPS. The A2000 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with 8.637 TFLOPS, a feature the M2090 does not list.

Power and physical characteristics are also completely different. The A2000 is an IGP with a 95 W TDP and no power connectors, while the M2090 is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP, requiring a 600 W power supply and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors. The A2000 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the M2090 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16. The A2000's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," while the M2090 has no display outputs at all, as it is a compute-only accelerator. Their release dates are also telling: the A2000 was released in April 2021, while the M2090 came out in July 2011.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The RTX A2000 Mobile is based on the Ampere architecture, specifically the GA107 chip, while the Tesla M2090 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF110 chip. This is a generational leap from a 2011 design to a 2021 one. The Ampere architecture introduces dedicated RT cores for ray tracing and Tensor cores for AI acceleration, features that simply do not exist in the Fermi architecture. The M2090's core design is a traditional compute-oriented layout with 512 shading units, optimized for the scientific and HPC workloads of its time.

The manufacturing process is a primary driver of the performance difference. The A2000 is built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, allowing for 43.5M transistors per mm². The M2090, fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process, achieves only 5.8M transistors per mm². This density advantage, combined with architectural improvements, allows the A2000 to pack far more processing power into a smaller, more efficient package. The A2000's memory subsystem uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the M2090 uses GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. Despite the wider bus, the M2090's older memory technology results in lower bandwidth. The A2000 also supports the latest API features, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the M2090 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. In essence, the RTX A2000 Mobile represents a complete redesign with modern features and efficiency, while the Tesla M2090 is a product of its time, built for raw compute throughput without any of the modern graphics or AI capabilities.