AMD FirePro W7000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a narrow but clear split between these two professional cards. The AMD FirePro W7000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a margin of 1.9%. That is not a dominant victory, but it is a consistent one in the compute-focused workload that the test represents.

The NVIDIA Tesla K40c, by contrast, does not win any recorded benchmark in the direct comparison. Its average benchmark score of 17468 places it behind the FirePro W7000’s 19905 average. However, the K40c’s loss is not a rout. Its nearest rivals in the database, the AMD Radeon Pro 460 and Radeon Pro 560, score 17509 and 17551 respectively, which are within 0.5% of the Tesla’s number. This indicates that the K40c sits in a performance band where small differences in driver optimization or workload type could flip the result.

For the user, the practical takeaway is this: if your workload is OpenCL compute, the FirePro W7000 has the edge. If your workload is something else entirely, such as CUDA-dependent code, the database does not record a benchmark for that here, so the K40c’s advantage must be inferred from its architecture rather than measured in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different design philosophies. The FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The K40c uses the GK180 chip on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with 7,080 million transistors on a much larger 561 mm² die. Its density is slightly lower at 12.6M per mm², which reflects a design that prioritizes raw shading power over packing efficiency.

The shader configuration tells the story. The FirePro W7000 has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla K40c has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. That is more than double the shader count and three times the texture units. The K40c’s theoretical peak pixel rate is 52.56 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s for the FirePro, and its texture rate of 210.2 GTexel/s dwarfs the FirePro’s 76.00 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds also differ. The K40c has a base clock of 745 MHz and a boost clock of 876 MHz, while the FirePro’s base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. The memory clock is different as well: the FirePro runs at 1200 MHz with 4.8 Gbps effective, the K40c at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. These architectural choices point to the K40c being built for heavy parallel compute, while the FirePro is a more balanced workstation card with display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark recorded is Geekbench OpenCL. The FirePro W7000 scores 17808, the Tesla K40c scores 17468. The FirePro wins by 1.9%. That is a meaningful margin in a compute test, but it is not a landslide. For context, the K40c’s score of 17468 is only 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 460, 0.5% behind the Radeon Pro 560, and 1% behind the GeForce RTX 4060, according to its nearest rivals.

The FirePro’s nearest rivals tell a similar story. Its score of 17808 is 0.1% ahead of the Tesla K40m, 0.7% ahead of the Radeon RX 6650 XT, 1.4% ahead of the FirePro D300, and 1.5% ahead of the Quadro K5200. This places the FirePro in a dense cluster of GPUs where a few percentage points separate the top from the bottom.

What this means in practice: in a pure OpenCL compute task, the FirePro W7000 is faster than the K40c by a margin that would be noticeable in a long render or simulation job, but not transformative. The K40c’s higher theoretical FP32 throughput of 5.046 TFLOPS versus the FirePro’s 2.432 TFLOPS does not translate into a win here, which suggests the OpenCL workload is not saturating the K40c’s shader array, or that driver overhead is eating into its advantage.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two cards differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | AMD FirePro W7000 | NVIDIA Tesla K40c |

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

| Chip | Pitcairn | GK180 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Transistors | 2,800 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 212 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 745 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 876 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1200 MHz, 4.8 Gbps effective | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2880 |

| TMUs | 80 | 240 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 30.40 GPixel/s | 52.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 76.00 GTexel/s | 210.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.432 TFLOPS | 5.046 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 245 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 242 mm, 9.5 inches | 267 mm, 10.5 inches |

| Height | 111 mm, 4.4 inches | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2012-06-12 | 2013-10-07 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Tesla Fermi |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Tesla Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | 899 USD | 7,699 USD |

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 wins the recorded Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 17808 versus the Tesla K40c’s 17468, a 1.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Tesla K40c have more memory?

A: Yes. The K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W7000 has 4 GB on a 256-bit bus with 153.6 GB/s.

Q: Which card has higher theoretical FP32 performance?

A: The Tesla K40c, at 5.046 TFLOPS, is more than double the FirePro W7000’s 2.432 TFLOPS. However, this does not translate into a win in the recorded OpenCL benchmark.

Q: Can either card output video?

A: The FirePro W7000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Tesla K40c has no display outputs, making it a compute-only card.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The FirePro W7000 has a 150 W TDP and needs a 450 W PSU with a single 6-pin connector. The Tesla K40c has a 245 W TDP, needs a 550 W PSU, and uses one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card is newer?

A: The Tesla K40c was released on 2013-10-07, over a year after the FirePro W7000’s 2012-06-12 release date.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD FirePro W7000 if your priority is OpenCL compute performance with a display output. The data shows it wins the only recorded benchmark, and its lower TDP of 150 W means it fits in more systems with a modest 450 W PSU recommendation. It is also a single-slot card, which helps in dense chassis. The 4 GB memory is enough for many workstation tasks, and the 4x DisplayPort outputs make it usable for visualization.

Pick the NVIDIA Tesla K40c if your workload demands massive memory capacity and raw shader throughput, and if you do not need any display output. The 12 GB frame buffer and 384-bit bus provide 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is nearly double the FirePro’s 153.6 GB/s. The FP32 rate of 5.046 TFLOPS suggests it can handle heavier compute loads, even if the recorded OpenCL test does not show it. Just be aware of the physical demands: a dual-slot card, 245 W TDP, 550 W PSU recommendation, and a longer 267 mm length.

In the database’s own terms, the FirePro W7000 sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the K40c sits at the 61st. That gap is small, and the nearest rival data shows both cards are surrounded by competitors within a percentage point or two. If you already have a CUDA codebase, the K40c is the only choice. If you are starting fresh with OpenCL, the FirePro W7000 is the statistically safer bet, and it costs less to power and cool. The verdict is not about which card is universally better, it is about matching the card to the task. The FirePro wins the measured task, the K40c wins the unmeasured ones on paper.