AMD Radeon 680M vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K40c and AMD Radeon 680M represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by nearly a decade of design philosophy. The Tesla K40c is a dual-slot, 245 W compute accelerator from the Kepler era, built for server racks and scientific workloads. The Radeon 680M is a 50 W integrated graphics processor designed to sit inside a laptop or small-form-factor PC. Comparing them directly is unusual, but the recorded data offers a clear picture of how far integrated graphics have come.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive: the Radeon 680M scores 23,468 points, while the Tesla K40c scores 17,468 points. That is a 25.6% advantage for the Radeon 680M. The delta is recorded with a negative sign for the Tesla K40c, which means NVIDIA’s card is the one trailing in this direct comparison.

This result is striking when you consider the hardware differences. The Tesla K40c has 2,880 shader units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Radeon 680M has 768 shader units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has nearly four times the shader count and five times the TMUs, yet it loses the OpenCL test by a significant margin. The reason lies in architecture and clocks. The Radeon 680M runs at a base clock of 2000 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz, while the Tesla K40c runs at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. The newer RDNA 2.0 design in the Radeon 680M extracts far more performance per shader, and the clock advantage compounds that efficiency.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database puts both cards in context. The Tesla K40c sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,468. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.2% to 1% of that score: the AMD Radeon Pro 460 scores 17,509 (0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 scores 17,551 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon 780M scores 17,588 (0.7% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 scores 17,639 (1% higher). The Tesla K40c is effectively a mid-pack performer in the modern database, surrounded by integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs.

The Radeon 680M, meanwhile, sits at the 57th percentile with an average benchmark score of 15,270. That average is pulled down by its other benchmark results: it scores 378 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 21,965 in Geekbench Vulkan. The OpenCL score of 23,468 is its strongest result. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580, which scores 15,283 (0.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 at 15,290 (0.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM at 15,199 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 at 15,171 (0.7% lower). So the 680M, despite being an integrated part, trades blows with discrete GPUs from previous generations.

The single head-to-head result is the only direct comparison available, but it is a meaningful one. The Radeon 680M wins the only shared test, and the margin is substantial. The Tesla K40c does not win any head-to-head benchmark, while the Radeon 680M wins one. That is a clean 0 to 1 record in favor of the AMD part.

The Verdict

The data points strongly toward the Radeon 680M as the better performing part in the shared workload. The 25.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is not a small edge; it is a substantial gap that reverses the expectations set by the hardware specifications. The Tesla K40c has more shaders, more TMUs, and more memory bandwidth, but that does not translate into a higher score. The Radeon 680M’s much higher clock speeds and modern RDNA 2.0 architecture compensate for its smaller configuration.

The Tesla K40c’s 61st percentile placement shows that it still holds its own against many modern GPUs, but its immediate rivals are all within 1% of its score. It is not a dominant part by any modern benchmark; it is simply a capable one. The Radeon 680M’s 57th percentile is lower overall, but its OpenCL score is far above the Tesla’s, and its Vulkan score of 21,965 is also higher than the Tesla’s only recorded benchmark.

For a user deciding between these two, the only data-supported recommendation is to choose the Radeon 680M for any compute workload that relies on OpenCL. The Tesla K40c offers no benchmark advantage in the shared test. The Tesla does have other features, such as 12 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory and a 384-bit memory bus, but the database records no benchmark using that memory, so no performance claim can be made for it.

The production status also matters. The Tesla K40c is end-of-life, released on October 7, 2013, with a launch MSRP of 7,699 USD. The Radeon 680M is active, released on January 2, 2023, and listed without a launch MSRP. For a new system, the Radeon 680M is the only one with an active production status. The Tesla K40c is a legacy part, and the data suggests that in the one test they share, it is the weaker performer.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 680M wins the only head-to-head test, so it has the clearest claim to victory in compute workloads measured by OpenCL. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 23,468 is 25.4% higher than the Tesla’s 17,468. The Radeon also has a higher pixel rate, 70.40 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s, and a higher base clock, 2000 MHz versus 745 MHz. These are not benchmark scores, but they are recorded specifications that indicate the Radeon 680M can fill render targets faster and execute instructions more quickly.

The Radeon 680M also supports newer API features. It lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and has 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, though the database records no ray tracing benchmark. It also has a 6.758 TFLOPS FP16 rate, which is exactly double its FP32 rate, indicating a 2:1 ratio that can accelerate certain workloads. The Tesla K40c has no FP16 data and only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which is an earlier feature level.

The Tesla K40c has no recorded benchmark win. Its only advantage in the data is its raw memory configuration: 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 680M has system-shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent, so the Tesla has a clear memory capacity and dedicated bandwidth advantage. But no benchmark in the database uses that memory in a way that produces a winning score. The Tesla also has a higher texture rate, 210.2 GTexel/s against 105.6 GTexel/s, but again, the OpenCL result does not reflect that. The Radeon 680M’s texture rate of 105.6 GTexel/s is less than half, yet it wins the compute test.

For a use case like scientific compute, the Tesla’s 5.046 TFLOPS FP32 rate is higher than the Radeon 680M’s 3.379 TFLOPS. That specification suggests the Tesla should excel in pure FP32 math, but no benchmark confirms it. The only recorded test shows the opposite. The Radeon 680M, meanwhile, has a 6.758 TFLOPS FP16 rate, which is higher than its own FP32 and higher than the Tesla’s FP32, indicating a different compute profile.

In summary, the Radeon 680M wins where clocks and architecture efficiency matter, and that is the only place the data records a result. The Tesla K40c wins only if someone values its dedicated 12 GB memory, but the database has no benchmark result that validates that advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M scores 23,468, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17,468, giving the Radeon a 25.4% lead.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the NVIDIA Tesla K40c?

A: The Tesla K40c is at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,468.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 680M have any ray tracing capability?

A: Yes, the Radeon 680M has 12 ray tracing cores, but the database has no ray tracing benchmark score for it.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the Tesla K40c?

A: The Tesla K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, with 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP of the AMD Radeon 680M?

A: The Radeon 680M has a TDP of 50 W, while the Tesla K40c has a TDP of 245 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Tesla K40c’s 52.56 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The NVIDIA Tesla K40c uses the GK180 chip, based on the Kepler architecture, and belongs to the Tesla Kepler generation (Kxx). It is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The chip is a discrete, dual-slot accelerator, and it is now end-of-life. Its predecessor is listed as Tesla Fermi and its successor as Tesla Maxwell.

The AMD Radeon 680M uses the Rembrandt+ chip, based on RDNA 2.0, and belongs to the Navi II IGP (Rembrandt Mobile) generation. It is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 63.0 million per square millimeter. The RDNA 2.0 architecture includes 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is a more modern feature set than the Tesla’s DirectX 12 (11_0). The Radeon 680M is an integrated GPU, labeled as IGP, and is active status. Its predecessor is Vega II IGP and its successor is Navi III IGP.

The difference in transistor density is the most telling. The Radeon 680M packs 63.0 million transistors per square millimeter, five times the density of the Tesla K40s’s 12.6 million. That is a direct result of the process node difference, 6 nm versus 28 nm. The Radeon also has a much smaller die, 208 mm² versus 561 mm², while hosting more transistors, 13,100 million versus 7,080 million. The architectural approach is entirely different: the Tesla is a large, power-hungry discrete GPU, while the Radeon is a compact integrated part.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The Tesla K40c has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Radeon 680M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Tesla has no ray tracing cores, while the Radeon has 12. The Tesla has no tensor cores, and the Radeon also has none.

The clock speeds differ greatly. The Tesla runs at a base clock of 745 MHz and a boost clock of 876 MHz, while the Radeon runs at 2000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The Tesla’s memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Radeon uses system shared memory and has no dedicated memory clock listed.

The memory subsystem is a major split. The Tesla has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, with 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon has system shared memory, with size, type, and bus width all marked as system shared and bandwidth listed as system dependent. This means the Radeon’s memory performance is entirely dependent on the host system’s configuration.

The compute rates also differ. The Tesla achieves 5.046 TFLOPS in FP32, and no FP16 rate is recorded. The Radeon achieves 3.379 TFLOPS in FP32 and 6.758 TFLOPS in FP16, with a 2:1 ratio. The Tesla has a pixel rate of 52.56 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 210.2 GTexel/s. The Radeon has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 105.6 GTexel/s.

The power and physical characteristics are opposite. The Tesla has a TDP of 245 W, uses dual-slot cooling, and requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The Radeon has a TDP of 50 W, is an IGP with no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. The Tesla is 267 mm long (10.5 inches), while the Radeon has no recorded dimensions. The Tesla uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Tesla has no display outputs, while the Radeon’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

The API support differs as well. The Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon has a newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version. The release dates are far apart, with the Tesla released October 7, 2013, and the Radeon released January 20, 2015, though the exact month is recorded as January 2, 2015, in the database. The Tesla’s launch MSRP is 7,699 USD, while the Radeon has no launch MSRP.