NVIDIA Tesla M60 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Tesla M60 and NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Tesla M60
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- 28x more texture fill rate: 2x 151.0 GTexel / s billion / sec vs 76.8 billion / sec
- 16x more pipelines: 2x 2048 vs 2x 128
- 12.6x better floating-point performance: 2x 4,833 gflops vs 2x 384.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 16x more maximum memory size: 2x 8 GB vs 2x 512 MB
- 5x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- 9.5x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 7551 vs 798
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 30 August 2015 vs 18 March 2008 |
Texture fill rate | 2x 151.0 GTexel / s billion / sec vs 76.8 billion / sec |
Pipelines | 2x 2048 vs 2x 128 |
Floating-point performance | 2x 4,833 gflops vs 2x 384.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
Maximum memory size | 2x 8 GB vs 2x 512 MB |
Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7551 vs 798 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2
- 2.7x more core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 557 MHz
- Around 52% lower typical power consumption: 197 Watt vs 300 Watt
- Around 1% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 518 vs 513
- Around 81% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3238 vs 1791
- Around 81% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3238 vs 1791
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 557 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 197 Watt vs 300 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 518 vs 513 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3238 vs 1791 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3238 vs 1791 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Tesla M60
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Tesla M60 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7551 | 798 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 513 | 518 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 29243 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 114.389 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1451.124 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.266 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 70.038 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 314.404 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8663 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 886 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1791 | 3238 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8663 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 886 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1791 | 3238 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Tesla M60 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Tesla |
Code name | GM204 | G92 |
Launch date | 30 August 2015 | 18 March 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 487 | 488 |
Type | Workstation | Desktop |
Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1178 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 557 MHz | 1500 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 2x 4,833 gflops | 2x 384.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 2x 2048 | 2x 128 |
Texture fill rate | 2x 151.0 GTexel / s billion / sec | 76.8 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 300 Watt | 197 Watt |
Transistor count | 5,200 million | 754 million |
CUDA cores | 256 (128 per GPU) | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, HDMIDual Link DVI |
Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 267 mm | 10.5" (26.7 cm) |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 6-pin & 8-pin |
SLI options | Quad | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2x 8 GB | 2x 512 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 2x 160.4 GB / s | 128 (64 per GPU) |
Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 512 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
SLI |