GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 are both end-of-life professional graphics cards from NVIDIA, but they target different segments and are built on different generations of architecture. The Tesla M2090 is a compute-focused accelerator from the Fermi 2.0 generation, while the Quadro K4200 is a workstation GPU from the Kepler generation. The benchmark data available provides a single direct comparison point, along with context from their respective nearest rivals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Tesla M2090 posts a score of 13075 against the Quadro K4200's 12313. This gives the Tesla M2090 a 6.2% advantage in this specific compute test. While this is a clear win for the older Fermi card, it is not a dominant one. The delta of 6.2% indicates a moderate performance gap in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

Looking at the wider benchmark context, the Tesla M2090's average benchmark score is 13075, placing it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (avg score 12986, deltaPct 0.7), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 (avg score 13189, deltaPct -0.9), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (avg score 12940, deltaPct 1), and the AMD Radeon RX 580 (avg score 12928, deltaPct 1.1). This shows the Tesla M2090 sits in a tight cluster of performance, roughly on par with these consumer and mobile parts, with differences of about one percent either way.

The Quadro K4200's average benchmark score is 12398, placing it in the 52nd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (avg score 12625, deltaPct -1.8), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (avg score 12710, deltaPct -2.5), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (avg score 12773, deltaPct -2.9), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A (avg score 11998, deltaPct 3.3). The Quadro K4200 trails some of these rivals but is 3.3% ahead of the GTX 960A. Its position is slightly lower than the Tesla M2090's, both in absolute score and in relation to its peer group.

The data indicates that in the single benchmark where both cards are measured, the Tesla M2090 is the faster card. However, the K4200 also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 12482, which is not available for the Tesla M2090. This makes a direct comparison in that API impossible from the provided facts.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available data, the Tesla M2090 wins in the only directly comparable metric, Geekbench OpenCL. This suggests it holds a raw compute advantage in OpenCL workloads, likely due to its higher memory bandwidth and specific compute-oriented design. Its 6 GB of memory is also larger than the Quadro K4200's 4 GB, which could be an advantage in datasets that exceed 4 GB in size.

The Quadro K4200's wins are not in benchmark scores but in feature set and efficiency. It has display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2), making it a functional workstation card for driving monitors, whereas the Tesla M2090 has no display outputs. It also supports the Vulkan API (version 1.2.175), which the Tesla M2090 does not have listed. The K4200's power draw is significantly lower at 108 W versus 250 W for the Tesla, and it requires a less demanding power setup (1x 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin and a 600 W suggested PSU).

Therefore, the Tesla M2090 is the winner in pure compute performance as measured by OpenCL, while the Quadro K4200 wins in practical workstation usability, software API support, and power efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Tesla M2090 uses the GF110 chip based on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.8 million transistors per mm². The Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, also from TSMC but on a more advanced 28 nm process. This chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a much smaller 294 mm² die, resulting in a significantly higher transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per mm².

The core configurations differ substantially. The Tesla M2090 has 512 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro K4200 has 1344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. This means the Kepler card has more than double the shader and texture hardware, but fewer ROPs. Clock speeds also differ: the Tesla M2090 does not list a base or boost clock, while the Quadro K4200 has a base clock of 771 MHz and a boost clock of 784 MHz. The memory clocks differ as well, with the Tesla M2090 running memory at 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective) and the Quadro K4200 at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective).

Memory subsystems are a key differentiator. The Tesla M2090 features 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s. The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s. Despite the newer and faster memory chips on the K4200, the Tesla's wider bus gives it a slight bandwidth advantage. The resulting pixel rates are similar (20.83 GPixel/s for Tesla vs 21.95 GPixel/s for K4200), but the texture rate is vastly different, with the Quadro K4200 achieving 87.81 GTexel/s compared to the Tesla's 41.66 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is also higher on the K4200 at 2.107 TFLOPS versus 1,332.2 GFLOPS on the Tesla.

Feature support shows a split. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K4200 adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the Tesla M2090 lists no Vulkan support. The Tesla M2090 has no display outputs, while the Quadro K4200 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 is faster, scoring 13075 compared to the Quadro K4200's 12313, a 6.2% difference.

Q: How does the Tesla M2090 compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The Tesla M2090's average score of 13075 is 0.7% higher than the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12986), 0.9% lower than the GeForce GTX 950 (13189), 1% higher than the GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940), and 1.1% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12928).

Q: Does the Quadro K4200 support any API that the Tesla M2090 does not?

A: Yes, the Quadro K4200 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while no Vulkan support is listed for the Tesla M2090. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two cards?

A: The Tesla M2090 has a TDP of 250 W, while the Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W. The suggested PSU for the Tesla is 600 W, whereas the Quadro only requires a 300 W PSU.

Q: Can either card be used to drive a display?

A: Only the Quadro K4200 has display outputs, offering 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Tesla M2090 has no display outputs.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla M2090 has 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is slightly higher than the Quadro K4200's 172.8 GB/s, despite the latter having a faster memory clock.

Specification Differences

The following table lists the key specifications that differ between the two cards, based solely on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla M2090 | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | GF110 | GK104 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.8M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 784 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective) | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1344 |

| TMUs | 64 | 112 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.83 GPixel/s | 21.95 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.66 GTexel/s | 87.81 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,332.2 GFLOPS | 2.107 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 250 W | 108 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan API | Not listed | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2011-07-24 | 2014-07-21 |

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture of two different tools. The Tesla M2090, despite being older and based on a less advanced architecture, wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 6.2%. It also offers a larger 6 GB memory pool and slightly higher memory bandwidth. For users whose primary concern is raw compute performance in OpenCL applications and who have the power budget and space for a dual-slot, 250 W card, the Tesla M2090 is the better choice based on the benchmark results.

The Quadro K4200, on the other hand, is the more versatile and efficient workstation card. It is the only one of the two that can output video, making it a practical choice for a desktop workstation. It also supports the Vulkan API, broadening its software compatibility. Its Kepler architecture delivers higher texture and FP32 performance, and its lower TDP of 108 W, single-slot design, and simpler power requirements make it far easier to integrate into a system. The K4200 is the appropriate pick for users who need a functional, efficient workstation GPU that can also handle compute tasks, while the Tesla M2090 is for those who prioritize the specific compute benchmark where it leads.