AMD FirePro D500 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The dataset contains only one benchmark score for each card, and they run under different API workloads, so a direct same-test comparison is not possible. The AMD FirePro D500 posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 18,533, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 17,468. Because the tests are not identical, the raw numbers cannot be weighed against each other as apples-to-apples performance figures. Instead, the useful comparison comes from how each card positions against its own nearest rivals.

The FirePro D500's 18,533 Vulkan score puts it at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 560X at 18,626, a delta of -0.5% — meaning the D500 trails that card by a negligible half a percent. The Intel Arc A770M scores 18,383, which is 0.8% behind the D500. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT sits at 18,685, 0.8% ahead of the D500, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 at 18,373 is 0.9% behind. The picture here is one of extreme clustering: all four rivals fall within a band of roughly 1.7 percentage points, and the D500 is essentially dead-center in that group.

The Tesla K40c's 17,468 OpenCL score places it at the 61st percentile, one point below the D500's percentile. Its nearest rivals are similarly tight. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 scores 17,509, just 0.2% ahead of the K40c. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 scores 17,551, a 0.5% lead. The AMD Radeon 780M scores 17,588, 0.7% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 scores 17,639, a full 1% ahead. Notably, the K40c's closest rival list includes the RTX 4060 — a much younger consumer card — yet the K40c trails it by only one percentage point in this specific OpenCL test.

The headline observation is that both cards are comparably positioned in their respective benchmark pools. The D500's 0.8% win over the Arc A770M is its largest positive delta, while its 0.8% loss to the Radeon Pro 5700 XT is its largest negative. The K40c's best showing is a 0.2% gap to the Radeon Pro 460, and its worst is the 1% deficit to the RTX 4060. Neither card dominates its peer group; both are mid-pack performers within a narrow performance envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro D500 wins in the Vulkan API workload, delivering 18,533 points. This is a compute-oriented test, and the D500's score places it above the Intel Arc A770M by 0.8% and above the AMD Radeon RX 460 by 0.9%. The data suggests the D500 is competitive in Vulkan compute tasks, holding its own against a mix of newer integrated and discrete parts. Its 62nd percentile ranking indicates it outperforms a majority of the GPU population in this specific test, even though it is an end-of-life product from 2014.

The NVIDIA Tesla K40c wins in the OpenCL API workload with 17,468 points. This is a different compute language, and the K40c's score lands it at the 61st percentile. While its delta against all four nearest rivals is negative, the margins are razor-thin: -0.2% to the Radeon Pro 460, -0.5% to the Radeon Pro 560, -0.7% to the Radeon 780M, and -1% to the RTX 4060. The K40c is the oldest card in its comparison set by a wide margin, yet it trails the newest RTX 4060 by only a single percentage point in OpenCL. That is a meaningful data point for anyone running legacy OpenCL workloads.

The split is clean: the D500 is the better pick for Vulkan-based compute, and the K40c is the better pick for OpenCL-based compute. The D500's Vulkan score is 1,065 points higher than the K40c's OpenCL score, but again, that cross-API gap is not directly comparable. What the data does show is that each card leads in its own tested API, and neither has a benchmark result in the other's API. The D500 also carries display outputs (6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI), making it suitable for tasks that require visual output, whereas the K40c has no display outputs at all, indicating a pure compute role.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but the similarity ends there. The FirePro D500 uses the Tahiti chip with AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, while the Tesla K40c uses the GK180 chip with NVIDIA's Kepler architecture. Both are end-of-life products, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies.

The K40c's GK180 is a much larger die: 561 mm² versus 352 mm² for the D500's Tahiti. Transistor counts follow suit — the K40c packs 7,080 million transistors against the D500's 4,313 million. Transistor density is nearly identical (12.6M per mm² for the K40c, 12.3M per mm² for the D500), which is expected given the shared process node. The K40c's larger die and transistor budget translate into a substantially wider execution engine: 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, versus the D500's 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

These architectural differences produce large throughput gaps. The K40c delivers 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, more than double the D500's 2.227 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 52.56 GPixel/s for the K40c versus 23.20 GPixel/s for the D500. Texture rate is 210.2 GTexel/s versus 69.60 GTexel/s. In every raw throughput metric, the K40c is roughly 2.0 to 3.0 times faster. The D500's clocks are not listed for base or boost, but its memory runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the K40c's memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations also differ significantly. The D500 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 243.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 on the same 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s. The K40c thus quadruples the D500's memory capacity while adding about 18% more bandwidth. The power draw is counterintuitive: the larger K40c is rated at 245 W TDP, while the smaller D500 is rated at 274 W. The K40c also requires specific power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin), whereas the D500's connectors are not listed. The suggested PSU is 550 W for the K40c and 600 W for the D500.

API support differs in DirectX version: the D500 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the K40c supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, and both support Vulkan — the D500 at version 1.2.170, the K40c at a slightly newer 1.2.175. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and neither lists FP16 compute. The D500 is 279 mm long (11 inches), the K40c is 267 mm (10.5 inches). Both are dual-slot cards.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the choice between these two cards depends entirely on the workload API. For Vulkan compute, the AMD FirePro D500 is the stronger option, scoring 18,533 and ranking at the 62nd percentile. Its nearest rivals are all within a 1% band, but it edges out the Intel Arc A770M and the Radeon RX 460. For OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA Tesla K40c is the better card, scoring 17,468 and ranking at the 61st percentile, even though it trails all four of its nearest rivals by margins of 0.2% to 1.0%.

The raw architecture data strongly favors the K40c. It has more than double the FP32 throughput (5.046 TFLOPS vs 2.227 TFLOPS), four times the memory capacity (12 GB vs 3 GB), higher memory bandwidth (288.4 GB/s vs 243.8 GB/s), and higher pixel and texture rates. If the task is purely compute-bound and can leverage OpenCL, the K40c's hardware is decisively more capable. The fact that its OpenCL score is only 1% behind the RTX 4060 — a much newer card — underscores its compute headroom.

However, the D500 has one clear advantage: display outputs. It offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, making it usable in workstation setups that require driving multiple monitors. The K40c has no display outputs, confining it to headless compute servers. The D500 also has a lower transistor count and smaller die, which may simplify integration in some chassis, though its higher TDP (274 W) and longer 279 mm length complicate that picture slightly.

For a user running Vulkan-based applications, the D500 is the data-backed choice, especially if visual output is needed. For a user running OpenCL-based compute workloads with large memory requirements, the K40c is clearly superior — the 12 GB frame buffer alone is a decisive advantage for datasets that exceed 3 GB. The K40c's launch MSRP was 7,699 USD, which is a data point worth noting for historical context. The D500 has no launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro D500 scores 18,533 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17,468 in Geekbench OpenCL. The scores are from different tests and cannot be directly compared as equivalent performance measures.

Q: How does the FirePro D500 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The D500 trails the AMD Radeon RX 560X by 0.5% and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT by 0.8%. It leads the Intel Arc A770M by 0.8% and the AMD Radeon RX 460 by 0.9%. All four rivals are within a 1.7% band.

Q: How does the Tesla K40c compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K40c trails all four of its nearest rivals: the AMD Radeon Pro 460 by 0.2%, the AMD Radeon Pro 560 by 0.5%, the AMD Radeon 780M by 0.7%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 by 1.0%.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD FirePro D500 has 3 GB. Both use a 384-bit memory bus, but the K40c also has higher bandwidth at 288.4 GB/s versus 243.8 GB/s.

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput?

A: The Tesla K40c has 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to the FirePro D500's 2.227 TFLOPS. The K40c also has higher pixel rate (52.56 GPixel/s vs 23.20 GPixel/s) and texture rate (210.2 GTexel/s vs 69.60 GTexel/s).

Q: Do these cards support display output?

A: The AMD FirePro D500 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs. The NVIDIA Tesla K40c has no display outputs, making it a headless compute card only.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro D500 | NVIDIA Tesla K40c |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | Tahiti | GK180 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,313 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 352 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 745 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 876 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 243.8 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,536 | 2,880 |

| TMUs | 96 | 240 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 52.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 69.60 GTexel/s | 210.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.227 TFLOPS | 5.046 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 274 W | 245 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI | No outputs |

| DirectX Version | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL Version | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 279 mm (11 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-01-17 | 2013-10-07 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |