GeForce GTX 275 vs Tesla M2090
GeForce GTX 275
Popular choices:
Tesla M2090
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce GTX 275 is positioned at rank 217 and the Tesla M2090 is on rank 379, so the GeForce GTX 275 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 275
Performance Per Dollar Tesla M2090
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla M2090 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.8% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GTX 275 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 275 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+75%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | Standard Size (248mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The Tesla M2090 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Tesla M2090 holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $249), it costs 84% less, resulting in a 546% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 275 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+546%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($249) | ✅More affordable ($40) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 275 and Tesla M2090
GeForce GTX 275
The GeForce GTX 275 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 15 2009. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 633 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 219W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,349 points. Launch price was $249.
Tesla M2090
The Tesla M2090 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 25 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 651 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,400 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 275 scores 1,349 and the Tesla M2090 reaches 1,400 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 275 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Tesla M2090 uses Fermi 2.0, both on 55 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 240 (GeForce GTX 275) vs 512 (Tesla M2090). Raw compute: 0.6739 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 275) vs 1.332 TFLOPS (Tesla M2090).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 275 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,349 | 1,400+4% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 512+113% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6739 TFLOPS | 1.332 TFLOPS+98% |
| ROPs | 28 | 48+71% |
| TMUs | 80+25% | 64 |
| L2 Cache | 224 KB | 768 KB+243% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 275 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 275 comes with 896 MB of VRAM, while the Tesla M2090 has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 275 offers 75% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 224 KB (GeForce GTX 275) vs 768 KB (Tesla M2090) — the Tesla M2090 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 275 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.875 GB+75% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 224 KB | 768 KB+243% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 275) vs 12 (FL 11_0) (Tesla M2090). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 275 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11 (10_0) | 12 (FL 11_0)+9% |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6+39% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Supported codecs: MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264 (GeForce GTX 275) vs CUDA,OpenCL (Tesla M2090).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 275 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | — |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP2 | — |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264 | CUDA,OpenCL |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 275 draws 219W versus the Tesla M2090's 250W — a 13.2% difference. The GeForce GTX 275 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 550W (GeForce GTX 275) vs 350W (Tesla M2090). Power connectors: 2x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 248mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 275 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 219W-12% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 550W | 350W-36% |
| Power Connector | 2x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 248mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 6.2+11% | 5.6 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 275 launched at $249 MSRP and currently averages $249, while the Tesla M2090 launched at $2500 and now averages $40. The Tesla M2090 costs 83.9% less ($209 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 5.4 (GeForce GTX 275) vs 35.0 (Tesla M2090) — the Tesla M2090 offers 548.1% better value. The Tesla M2090 is the newer GPU (2011 vs 2009).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 275 | Tesla M2090 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $249-90% | $2500 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $249 | $40-84% |
| Performance per Dollar | 5.4 | 35.0+548% |
| Codename | GT200B | GF110 |
| Release | January 15 2009 | July 25 2011 |
| Ranking | #789 | #530 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 275 and Tesla M2090
