Quadro P3200 vs Tesla M2090

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tesla M2090 with Quadro P3200, including specs and performance data.

Tesla M2090
2011
6 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
9.52

P3200 outperforms Tesla M2090 by a whopping 138% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking473256
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.6120.74
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGF110GP104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date25 July 2011 (13 years ago)21 February 2018 (7 years ago)

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 cores5121792
Core clock speed651 MHz1328 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1543 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate41.66172.8
Floating-point processing power1.332 TFLOPS5.53 TFLOPS
ROPs4864
TMUs64112

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB6 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed924 MHz1753 MHz
Memory bandwidth177.4 GB/s168.3 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.06.1

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 HD35−40
−140%
84
+140%
4K10−12
−180%
28
+180%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 79
+0%
79
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95
+0%
95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 119
+0%
119
+0%
Far Cry 5 74
+0%
74
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 88
+0%
88
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 84
+0%
84
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 112
+0%
112
+0%
Far Cry 5 70
+0%
70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 72
+0%
72
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+0%
46
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+0%
28
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how Tesla M2090 and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P3200 is 140% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P3200 is 180% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.52 22.68
Recency 25 July 2011 21 February 2018
Chip lithography 40 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro P3200 has a 138.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M2090 in performance tests.

Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation card while Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Tesla M2090
Tesla M2090
NVIDIA Quadro P3200
Quadro P3200

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 30 votes

Rate Tesla M2090 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 308 votes

Rate Quadro P3200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Tesla M2090 or Quadro P3200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.