AMD FirePro D300 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

The AMD FirePro D300 and NVIDIA Tesla K40c represent two very different philosophies for professional computing hardware from the same era. Both are end-of-life products built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but they diverge sharply in almost every other measurable way. The FirePro D300 is a compact, display-oriented workstation card, while the Tesla K40c is a massive, compute-focused accelerator with no video outputs at all. The benchmark data in the database shows a clear winner in the single recorded head-to-head test, but the broader specifications reveal why each card existed for entirely different purposes.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 records an average benchmark score of 19,637, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c averages 17,468. The FirePro D300 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 64 versus the Tesla's 61.

Q: How much faster is the FirePro D300 in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the FirePro D300 scores 19,515 against the Tesla K40c's 17,468. This is an 11.7% advantage for the AMD card, which wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between these two cards?

A: The Tesla K40c ships with 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the FirePro D300 has only 2 GB on a 256-bit bus. The Tesla's memory bandwidth is 288.4 GB/s compared to 162.6 GB/s for the FirePro.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Tesla K40c contains 2,880 shading units, while the FirePro D300 has 1,280. The Tesla also has 240 texture mapping units versus 80, and 48 ROPs versus 32.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The FirePro D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Tesla K40c supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both cards offer OpenGL 4.6, and the Tesla has a slightly newer Vulkan version at 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The FirePro D300 is a single-slot card measuring 242 mm (9.5 inches) in length. The Tesla K40c is a dual-slot card at 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, and it requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro D300 wins the only benchmark where both cards were tested: geekbench_opencl. The AMD card scores 19,515 versus 17,468 for the Tesla, a margin of 11.7%. This is the sole recorded head-to-head comparison, and the FirePro takes it decisively. However, the database does not include any Vulkan score for the Tesla, while the FirePro records 19,759 in that test. The FirePro's wins are therefore tied to its compute performance in the OpenCL workload, where it outperforms the Tesla despite having significantly fewer shading units and a smaller memory subsystem.

The Tesla K40c wins in every specification category that suggests raw throughput and capacity. It has more than double the shading units (2,880 versus 1,280), triple the texture units (240 versus 80), and 50% more ROPs (48 versus 32). Its pixel rate is 52.56 GPixel/s versus 27.20 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 210.2 GTexel/s versus 68.00 GTexel/s. The Tesla also offers 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 2.176 TFLOPS for the FirePro. For workloads that scale with raw shader count and memory capacity, such as large dataset processing or render farming, the Tesla's architecture has a theoretical edge that the FirePro cannot match.

The FirePro D300 counters with efficiency and practical design. Its 150 W TDP is far lower than the Tesla's 245 W, and it only needs a 450 W power supply versus 550 W. The FirePro also includes four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a functional workstation card for multi-monitor setups. The Tesla K40c has no display outputs at all, which means it cannot drive a monitor. In any use case where visual output is required, the FirePro is the only choice.

Architecture Differences

The FirePro D300 uses the Pitcairn chip built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture. This is a 28 nm design from TSMC with 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 13.2 million per square millimeter. GCN 1.0 was AMD's first generation of the Graphics Core Next architecture, which was designed to handle both graphics and compute workloads with a unified shader approach. The FirePro D300 belongs to the FirePro Data Center generation, code-named Dx00, and its predecessor was the FirePro Terascale line, with the successor being Radeon Instinct.

The Tesla K40c uses the GK180 chip, which is part of NVIDIA's Kepler architecture. This is also a 28 nm TSMC design, but it is a much larger chip: 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. The transistor density is slightly lower at 12.6 million per square millimeter, but the sheer size of the chip gives it far more raw resources. Kepler was NVIDIA's architecture that focused on efficiency and high clock speeds for compute tasks. The Tesla K40c belongs to the Tesla Kepler generation, with its predecessor being Tesla Fermi and its successor being Tesla Maxwell.

The architectural differences go beyond just the chip names. The FirePro D300 has an older DirectX support level (11_1 versus 11_0, which is actually a higher feature level for AMD), but both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The Tesla has a newer Vulkan version at 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170. The memory controllers are also fundamentally different: the FirePro uses a 256-bit bus, while the Tesla uses a 384-bit bus. This wider bus, combined with higher memory clock speed, gives the Tesla a substantial bandwidth advantage.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is in memory. The FirePro D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Tesla K40c has 12 GB. The Tesla's memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), compared to 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) for the FirePro. With a 384-bit bus versus 256-bit, the Tesla achieves 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the FirePro manages 162.6 GB/s. This is a 77% advantage for the Tesla in memory throughput.

The compute resources follow a similar pattern. The Tesla has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The FirePro has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla's pixel rate is 52.56 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 210.2 GTexel/s, while the FirePro sits at 27.20 GPixel/s and 68.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.046 TFLOPS for the Tesla and 2.176 TFLOPS for the FirePro.

The physical specifications also differ. The FirePro is a single-slot card at 242 mm long, while the Tesla is dual-slot at 267 mm. The Tesla requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, while the FirePro's power connectors are not specified. The FirePro draws 150 W and suggests a 450 W PSU, while the Tesla draws 245 W and suggests a 550 W PSU. The FirePro has four DisplayPort outputs; the Tesla has none. The FirePro was released on January 17, 2014, while the Tesla came out earlier on October 7, 2013.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is geekbench_opencl, and the FirePro D300 wins it with a score of 19,515 against the Tesla K40c's 17,468. That is an 11.7% difference in favor of the AMD card. This result is surprising given the Tesla's massive hardware advantage on paper. The Tesla has more than double the shading units and nearly double the FP32 throughput, yet it loses the OpenCL test by a significant margin. The database shows the FirePro's average benchmark score is 19,637, which puts it slightly above the Tesla's 17,468 average.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the FirePro D300 sits close to the NVIDIA Quadro K5200, which averages 19,602 (only 0.2% lower). It is also within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX, which averages 19,410. The Tesla K40c, by contrast, is closest to the AMD Radeon Pro 460, which averages 17,509 (0.2% higher). The Tesla's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 780M at 17,588 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17,639. This places the Tesla in a much lower performance tier than the FirePro, despite the Tesla's theoretical compute advantages. The OpenCL result suggests that the FirePro's GCN architecture is better optimized for this particular workload, or that the Tesla's drivers and software stack were not as efficient in this generation.

The FirePro also has a Vulkan score of 19,759, which is not available for the Tesla. This additional benchmark reinforces the FirePro's position as a more capable card in the database's recorded tests, even though the Tesla's raw specifications are superior on paper.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture: the AMD FirePro D300 outperforms the NVIDIA Tesla K40c in the only benchmark where both were tested, and it does so by a substantial 11.7% margin. The FirePro also has a higher average benchmark score (19,637 versus 17,468) and a higher percentile ranking (64 versus 61). For any user who relies on OpenCL compute performance, the FirePro D300 is the better choice according to the recorded measurements.

However, the Tesla K40c is not without its strengths. Its 12 GB of memory and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth are far superior to the FirePro's 2 GB and 162.6 GB/s. For workloads that require massive datasets to reside on the GPU, the Tesla is the only viable option. The Tesla also has more than double the shading units and nearly triple the texture units, which could be beneficial in scenarios that are not captured by the OpenCL benchmark. The Tesla's launch MSRP was 7,699 USD, which reflected its position as a high-end compute accelerator.

The FirePro D300 is the better card for most users based on the benchmark data. It wins the head-to-head test, has a higher average score, and offers display outputs for a workstation setup. Its lower TDP of 150 W also makes it easier to integrate into a system. The Tesla K40c is a specialized compute card that sacrifices all display functionality for raw capacity. The database shows that this trade-off did not translate into better benchmark performance in the recorded test. The FirePro's architectural efficiency, despite its smaller chip and fewer resources, delivers better results in practice. For compute tasks that fit within 2 GB of memory, the FirePro D300 is the clear winner. For memory-bound workloads that need 12 GB or more, the Tesla K40c remains the only choice, but its benchmark scores suggest it will not outperform the FirePro in general compute tasks. The verdict is straightforward: the FirePro D300 wins on measured performance, while the Tesla K40c wins only on specification sheet capacity.