Tesla M2090 vs Radeon R9 Fury
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Fury with Tesla M2090, including specs and performance data.
R9 Fury outperforms Tesla M2090 by a whopping 160% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 232 | 475 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.08 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.19 | 2.62 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GF110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 10 July 2015 (9 years ago) | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3584 | 512 |
| Compute units | 56 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 651 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 224.0 | 41.66 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.168 TFLOPS | 1.332 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 224 | 64 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 248 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 924 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 177.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 2.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 90
+200%
| 30−35
−200%
|
| 1440p | 106
+165%
| 40−45
−165%
|
| 4K | 48
+167%
| 18−20
−167%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.10 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.18 | no data |
| 4K | 11.44 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+167%
|
24−27
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+167%
|
24−27
−167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+166%
|
35−40
−166%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+189%
|
27−30
−189%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+190%
|
40−45
−190%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+166%
|
35−40
−166%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+175%
|
24−27
−175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+200%
|
30−33
−200%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+170%
|
60−65
−170%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+167%
|
24−27
−167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+166%
|
35−40
−166%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 268
+168%
|
100−105
−168%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+167%
|
45−50
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+189%
|
27−30
−189%
|
| Fortnite | 95
+171%
|
35−40
−171%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+166%
|
35−40
−166%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+175%
|
24−27
−175%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+183%
|
30−33
−183%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+183%
|
18−20
−183%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+200%
|
30−33
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 91
+203%
|
30−33
−203%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+170%
|
60−65
−170%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+166%
|
35−40
−166%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+189%
|
45−50
−189%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+189%
|
27−30
−189%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+166%
|
35−40
−166%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+175%
|
24−27
−175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+170%
|
60−65
−170%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 72
+167%
|
27−30
−167%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 158
+163%
|
60−65
−163%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+169%
|
65−70
−169%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+168%
|
75−80
−168%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+171%
|
24−27
−171%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+194%
|
18−20
−194%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+179%
|
14−16
−179%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+162%
|
21−24
−162%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 109
+173%
|
40−45
−173%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 47
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+170%
|
50−55
−170%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+191%
|
35−40
−191%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
This is how R9 Fury and Tesla M2090 compete in popular games:
- R9 Fury is 200% faster in 1080p
- R9 Fury is 165% faster in 1440p
- R9 Fury is 167% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.56 | 9.43 |
| Recency | 10 July 2015 | 25 July 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 250 Watt |
R9 Fury has a 160.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Tesla M2090, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 10% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2090 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 Fury is a desktop card while Tesla M2090 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
