GPU Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 460 and NVIDIA Tesla K40c are separated by just 0.2% in average benchmark score, a statistical tie that masks wildly different designs and use cases. The Tesla K40c wins the only shared benchmark decisively, while the Radeon Pro 460 counters with broader API support and a fraction of the power draw. The data shows two end-of-life GPUs from different eras, 2013 versus 2016, that happen to land in the same performance tier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole common benchmark between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is not close. The NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17,468, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 manages 15,284. That translates to a 12.5% deficit for the AMD part. The Tesla K40c’s advantage here is substantial, not a marginal edge, but a clear generational gap in raw compute throughput. The K40c’s 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Pro 460’s 1.858 TFLOPS explains the gap; the Tesla card has nearly 2.7 times the raw floating-point throughput.

However, the Radeon Pro 460 fights back with its average benchmark score across multiple tests. Its average of 17,509 comes from three Geekbench runs, Metal at 20,426, OpenCL at 15,284, and Vulkan at 16,816. The Tesla K40c’s average of 17,468 is based on a single OpenCL result. The Pro 460’s Metal score of 20,426 is its strongest showing, and it is 16.9% higher than the K40c’s OpenCL result. That Metal advantage is meaningful for macOS workloads, where the Radeon Pro 460’s architecture is natively supported.

The deltaPct figures from the nearest rivals list tell a similar story. From the Pro 460’s perspective, the Tesla K40c is 0.2% ahead on average score. From the K40c’s perspective, the Pro 460 is 0.2% ahead. Both cards sit at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, reinforcing that they occupy the same performance bracket despite their architectural differences.

The K40c also wins on pure throughput metrics. Its pixel rate of 52.56 GPixel/s is 3.6 times the Pro 460’s 14.51 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 210.2 GTexel/s is 3.6 times the Pro 460’s 58.05 GTexel/s. These numbers indicate the Tesla card is built for sustained compute workloads, not casual rendering.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Tesla K40c is the pick for compute-heavy, OpenCL-centric workloads. It delivers 12.5% higher OpenCL performance, backed by 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 power, 2,880 shading units, and 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus. This is a data-center card with 288.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, 3.5 times the Pro 460’s 81.28 GB/s. If your application relies on OpenCL and memory throughput, the K40c wins without qualification.

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 is the pick for macOS users and those needing modern API coverage. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. The Tesla K40c only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Pro 460’s Metal score of 20,426 suggests strong performance in Apple’s ecosystem, and its 35 W TDP versus the K40c’s 245 W makes it a viable option for portable or integrated designs. The K40c requires dual-slot cooling, a 6-pin plus 8-pin power connector, and a 550 W suggested PSU; the Pro 460 needs no power connectors at all.

For general use, the data points to a draw. Both cards sit at the 61st percentile, and their average scores differ by 0.2%. The choice hinges on platform and workload, not raw capability.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon Pro 460 uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture on the Baffin chip, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². The Tesla K40c uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture on the GK180 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 7,080 million transistors across a 561 mm² die, with a density of 12.6 million per mm². The Pro 460’s process advantage is clear: nearly double the transistor density on less than a quarter of the die area.

The K40c compensates with sheer scale. It has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The Pro 460 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Tesla card has 2.8 times the shaders, 3.75 times the TMUs, and 3 times the ROPs. But the Pro 460’s FP16 support is notable: it delivers 1.858 TFLOPS at FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, while the K40c lists no FP16 capability at all.

The memory architectures diverge sharply. The K40c uses a 384-bit bus with 12 GB of GDDR5, running at 1,502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed, for 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 460 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, running at 1,270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective speed, for 81.28 GB/s. The K40c’s memory subsystem is 3.5 times wider and 3.5 times faster in aggregate.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification. The Pro 460 clocks at 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost; the K40c runs at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost, the AMD chip is 14% faster at base and 3.5% faster at boost. The Pro 460’s 4 GB memory is dwarfed by the K40c’s 12 GB. The Pro 460 is an integrated form factor (IGP) with no power connectors and no display outputs of its own; the K40c is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) with a 6-pin plus 8-pin power connector and no display outputs either.

The Pro 460 connects via PCIe 3.0 x8; the K40c uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Pro 460’s TDP is 35 W; the K40c’s is 245 W, a 7x difference. The K40c has a suggested PSU of 550 W; the Pro 460 lists none. The Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3; the K40c supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The K40c was released on 2013-10-07 with a launch MSRP of 7,699 USD; the Pro 460 launched on 2016-10-29 with no launch MSRP listed. The K40c’s predecessor is Tesla Fermi and its successor is Tesla Maxwell; the Pro 460 lists neither.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 averages 17,509 across three Geekbench tests, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c averages 17,468 from a single OpenCL test, a 0.2% difference favoring the Pro 460.

Q: How much faster is the Tesla K40c in OpenCL?

A: The K40c scores 17,468 versus the Pro 460’s 15,284 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 12.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Can the Radeon Pro 460 handle modern graphics APIs that the Tesla K40c cannot?

A: Yes. The Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the K40c is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Tesla K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth; the Radeon Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card draws less power?

A: The Radeon Pro 460 has a 35 W TDP and requires no power connectors; the Tesla K40c has a 245 W TDP and needs a 6-pin plus 8-pin connector with a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Does the Tesla K40c have FP16 support?

A: The data shows no FP16 capability for the K40c. The Radeon Pro 460 delivers 1.858 TFLOPS at FP16 with a 1:1 ratio.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 wins in portability and efficiency. Its 35 W TDP means it can run without external power, making it suitable for integrated or compact systems. Its Metal score of 20,426 is the highest single benchmark result among both cards, indicating strength in Apple-centric rendering tasks. The Pro 460 also supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), giving it broader modern API compatibility. Its 14 nm process and 24.4M / mm² transistor density show a more advanced manufacturing approach.

The NVIDIA Tesla K40c wins in raw compute and memory throughput. Its OpenCL score of 17,468 beats the Pro 460 by 12.5%. Its 5.046 TFLOPS FP32 output, 2,880 shading units, and 288.4 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the heavy lifter for data-parallel workloads. The 12 GB framebuffer is three times larger than the Pro 460’s 4 GB, which matters for large datasets. Its pixel rate of 52.56 GPixel/s and texture rate of 210.2 GTexel/s dwarf the Pro 460’s 14.51 GPixel/s and 58.05 GTexel/s.

For gaming or desktop use, the Pro 460’s modern API support and low power draw are decisive. For server-side compute, the K40c’s throughput and memory capacity are unmatched in this pairing. The 0.2% average score difference is misleading; these cards serve different masters. The K40c is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, while the Pro 460 is a portable graphics solution. Choose based on workload, not averages.