Radeon 625 vs Tesla M2090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2090 with Radeon 625, including specs and performance data.
Tesla M2090 outperforms 625 by a whopping 235% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 463 | 789 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | 2.65 | 3.96 |
Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
GPU code name | GF110 | Polaris 24 |
Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (5 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 cores | 512 | 384 |
Core clock speed | 651 MHz | 730 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 1024 MHz |
Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,550 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 24.58 |
Floating-point processing power | 1.332 TFLOPS | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 48 | 8 |
TMUs | 64 | 24 |
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).
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Length | 248 mm | no data |
Width | 2-slot | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 924 MHz | 900 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 14.4 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 9.51 | 2.84 |
Recency | 25 July 2011 | 13 May 2019 |
Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
Tesla M2090 has a 234.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Radeon 625, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Tesla M2090 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 625 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation card while Radeon 625 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.