AMD Radeon HD 7970M vs NVIDIA Tesla K40m Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database shows a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA Tesla K40m and the AMD Radeon HD 7970M, using the Geekbench OpenCL workload. The Tesla K40m scored 19,885 points against the HD 7970M’s 17,019 points, a decisive 16.8% advantage. This is not a marginal gap; it places the Tesla K40m firmly ahead in raw compute throughput, which aligns with its role as a workstation-oriented accelerator. The HD 7970M, by contrast, trails by a wide margin in this metric, and its nearest rivals in the database illustrate the context: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 scores 17,037, essentially identical to the HD 7970M, while the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT posts 17,083, just 0.4% higher. The Tesla K40m’s lead is consistent across the board, as it outperforms its own nearest rivals by smaller margins: it is 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W7000 (19,905), 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765), 1.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637), and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602). In this head-to-head, the Tesla K40m wins the only benchmark recorded, while the HD 7970M has zero wins, making the outcome unambiguous.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K40m wins in every measurable category from the database, but the nature of that win is specific. The Geekbench OpenCL score reflects general-purpose compute performance, often used for tasks like physics simulation, image processing, or scientific workloads. The 16.8% delta means the Tesla K40m completes the same OpenCL workload with noticeably higher throughput, which is critical for users running long-running compute kernels. The HD 7970M, while a capable mobile GPU, is not designed for sustained compute tasks; its 60th percentile ranking among all GPUs, versus the Tesla K40m’s 65th percentile, confirms that the Tesla sits higher in the overall performance distribution. For a user prioritizing compute density in a server or workstation, the Tesla K40m is the clear choice. For a laptop or mobile workstation, the HD 7970M offers portability, but the benchmark data does not favor it in raw performance. The HD 7970M’s nearest rivals are telling: it is 0.1% slower than the GTX 690, 0.4% slower than the RX 7600 XT, and 0.5% faster than the Tesla M4, but it falls 1.1% short of the RTX 3070. These small deltas suggest the HD 7970M is competitive with mid-range desktop GPUs from later generations, but it cannot match the Tesla K40m’s absolute compute output. In practical terms, the Tesla K40m wins for any workload where OpenCL performance is the bottleneck, while the HD 7970M is only preferable in scenarios requiring a low-power, mobile form factor, where the benchmark scores are secondary.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Tesla K40m uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, specifically the GK110B chip, which is a large, compute-focused die. The HD 7970M uses AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 architecture, implemented on the Wimbledon chip, which is a smaller, more power-efficient design for mobile use. The process node is identical: both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the die sizes diverge sharply. The GK110B measures 561 mm², while the Wimbledon chip is 212 mm², a 2.6x difference in physical area. Transistor counts follow the same trend: the GK110B packs 7,080 million transistors, versus 2,800 million for the Wimbledon, giving the Tesla K40m a 2.5x transistor advantage. Interestingly, the transistor density is slightly higher on the AMD chip: 13.2 million transistors per mm² versus 12.6 million per mm² on the NVIDIA chip, indicating a more compact layout despite the older architecture. The Tesla K40m’s compute resources are substantially larger: it has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 raster operation units (ROPs), while the HD 7970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 52.56 GPixel/s for the Tesla versus 27.20 GPixel/s for the HD 7970M, and a texture rate of 210.2 GTexel/s versus 68.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput is 5.046 TFLOPS for the Tesla K40m, more than double the HD 7970M’s 2.176 TFLOPS. Neither GPU has ray tracing or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, though the Tesla K40m has a slightly newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170). The Tesla K40m also features a 384-bit memory bus with 12 GB of GDDR5, while the HD 7970M uses a 256-bit bus with 2 GB, leading to a bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. Clock speeds differ: the Tesla runs at a base of 745 MHz with a boost of 876 MHz, while the HD 7970M’s base and boost clocks are not recorded; only its memory clock is listed at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective), versus the Tesla’s 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Tesla K40m is built for a dual-slot, 267 mm card with no display outputs, while the HD 7970M is an MXM module with no power connectors, designed for portable devices.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. Memory capacity is a major split: the Tesla K40m has 12 GB, six times the HD 7970M’s 2 GB. Memory bandwidth is 288.4 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s, a 1.88x gap. The memory bus width is 384 bits versus 256 bits. Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are all higher on the Tesla K40m, as detailed above. The FP32 throughput is 5.046 TFLOPS versus 2.176 TFLOPS. Pixel rate and texture rate are also higher on the Tesla. The thermal design power (TDP) is 245 W for the Tesla K40m, while the HD 7970M is rated at 100 W, making the latter far more power-efficient per watt, though the Tesla’s absolute performance is higher. The Tesla K40m has a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the HD 7970M has no such recommendation. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Tesla, versus MXM-B (3.0) for the HD 7970M. Display outputs are absent on the Tesla (no outputs), while the HD 7970M’s outputs are described as portable device dependent. The Tesla K40m uses a dual-slot form factor with a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches), whereas the HD 7970M is an MXM module with no recorded dimensions. The Tesla K40m’s launch MSRP is 7,699 USD, while the HD 7970M has no recorded launch MSRP. The Tesla K40m was released on 2013-11-21, and the HD 7970M on 2012-04-23, indicating a roughly 19-month gap. Both are end-of-life products, with the Tesla K40m succeeding Tesla Fermi and preceding Tesla Maxwell, while the HD 7970M succeeds Vancouver and precedes Solar System. The Tesla K40m’s transistor density is 12.6M per mm², slightly lower than the HD 7970M’s 13.2M per mm². The Tesla’s memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the HD 7970M’s is 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). The Tesla K40m has no power connectors listed, while the HD 7970M explicitly has none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K40m scores 19,885 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon HD 7970M scores 17,019, a 16.8% difference in favor of the Tesla.

Q: How does the Tesla K40m compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Tesla K40m is 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W7000 (19,905), 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765), 1.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637), and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602).

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two cards?

A: The Tesla K40m has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the HD 7970M has 2 GB of GDDR5, with bandwidths of 288.4 GB/s and 153.6 GB/s, respectively.

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput?

A: The Tesla K40m delivers 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the HD 7970M delivers 2.176 TFLOPS, making the Tesla more than twice as fast in raw compute.

Q: Are these cards suitable for the same use case?

A: No. The Tesla K40m is a dual-slot workstation accelerator with no display outputs, designed for compute-heavy tasks. The HD 7970M is an MXM module for portable devices, with display outputs dependent on the host system, and its performance is significantly lower.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Tesla K40m has a TDP of 245 W, while the HD 7970M is rated at 100 W, making the AMD card more power-efficient but less performant.