AMD Radeon Pro 560 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40m Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head measurement places the NVIDIA Tesla K40m and AMD Radeon Pro 560 in a direct comparison through the Geekbench OpenCL test. The Tesla K40m scores 19,885 points, while the Radeon Pro 560 scores 15,504 points. That translates to a 28.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin that reflects the fundamental differences in their compute resources.

This result is not an outlier when viewed against the broader database. The Tesla K40m sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 560 rests at the 61st percentile. Although the percentile gap appears modest, the raw score difference is significant. The Tesla K40m's OpenCL score of 19,885 places it just 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W7000 (19,905) and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765). It also edges out the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637) by 1.3% and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602) by 1.4%.

The Radeon Pro 560, by contrast, shows a different competitive landscape. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 17,551, which is 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588) and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639). It does manage to beat the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509) by 0.2% and the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17,468) by 0.5%. Notably, the OpenCL score of 15,504 is the lowest among its own benchmark results, which also include a Metal score of 20,918 and a Vulkan score of 16,232.

The data shows a clear winner in the only direct comparison available. The Tesla K40m's 28.3% lead in OpenCL is decisive, and its average score of 19,885 is 13.3% higher than the Radeon Pro 560's average of 17,551.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K40m wins the only shared benchmark, the OpenCL test, with a 28.3% margin. This is the sole recorded head-to-head metric, and it favors NVIDIA heavily. The K40m's performance profile, built around a massive 7,080 million transistor chip with 2,880 shading units, delivers compute throughput that the Radeon Pro 560 cannot match in this workload.

The Radeon Pro 560, however, demonstrates strengths in other API environments. Its Metal score of 20,918 is the highest among its three recorded benchmarks, surpassing its OpenCL score by 34.9% and its Vulkan score by 28.9%. This suggests the GCN 4.0 architecture performs better in Apple's Metal framework, a relevant consideration for macOS environments. The Vulkan score of 16,232 also exceeds the OpenCL result by 4.7%.

For raw compute tasks using OpenCL, the Tesla K40m is the clear choice. For applications that leverage Metal, the Radeon Pro 560 shows a capability that the Tesla cannot offer, since the K40m has no display outputs and is designed for server-side compute rather than interactive graphics.

The use-case split is straightforward: the Tesla K40m dominates in the measured OpenCL workload, while the Radeon Pro 560 offers broader API coverage with Metal and Vulkan support, plus a portable device dependent display output suited for laptop integration.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, nodes, and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Tesla K40m uses the GK110B chip on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die measures 561 mm² and contains 7,080 million transistors, yielding a density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 uses the Polaris 21 chip on the GCN 4.0 architecture, built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. Its die is much smaller at 123 mm² with 3,000 million transistors, resulting in a higher density of 24.4 million per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems differ dramatically. The Tesla K40m carries 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384 bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth at 6 Gbps effective. The Radeon Pro 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, providing 81.28 GB/s at 5.1 Gbps effective. The Tesla has 3 times the memory capacity and 3.5 times the bandwidth.

Compute resources also diverge sharply. The Tesla K40m has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Radeon Pro 560 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The pixel rate for the Tesla is 52.56 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s for the AMD part, a 3.6 times difference. Texture rate is 210.2 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s, a 3.6 times difference. FP32 performance is 5.046 TFLOPS versus 1.858 TFLOPS, a 2.7 times difference.

The Radeon Pro 560 does support FP16 at 1.858 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Tesla K40m has no recorded FP16 capability. Clock speeds show the Tesla running at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost, while the Radeon Pro 560 has no recorded base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1,502 MHz for the Tesla and 1,270 MHz for the AMD.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The Tesla K40m has a 245 W TDP and is dual-slot, requiring a 550 W suggested PSU. The Radeon Pro 560 has a 75 W TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, and fits in a portable device. The Tesla uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

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 Pro 560 scores 15,504, giving the Tesla a 28.3% advantage.

Q: How does the Radeon Pro 560 perform in other APIs compared to OpenCL?

A: The Radeon Pro 560 scores 20,918 in Metal, 16,232 in Vulkan, and 15,504 in OpenCL. Its Metal score is 34.9% higher than its OpenCL score.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The Tesla K40m has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384 bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 560 has 4 GB on a 128 bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560 has a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40m has a 245 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same API versions?

A: Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan. The Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Radeon Pro 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: How does the Tesla K40m compare to its nearest 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).

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload and environment. For OpenCL compute tasks, the NVIDIA Tesla K40m is the superior choice, delivering a 28.3% higher score than the Radeon Pro 560. Its 12 GB memory, 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 5.046 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it a formidable compute accelerator, and its 65th percentile ranking confirms its standing among all GPUs.

The AMD Radeon Pro 560, however, should be selected for scenarios where Metal performance matters. Its Metal score of 20,918 exceeds the Tesla's OpenCL score of 19,885, though direct Metal comparison is unavailable for the NVIDIA part. The Radeon also fits into power-constrained or portable systems with its 75 W TDP and no power connectors, whereas the Tesla requires 245 W and dual-slot space.

For server-side compute, scientific workloads, or any OpenCL-heavy application, the Tesla K40m is the data-backed pick. For Mac-centric workflows, integrated graphics needs, or situations where power draw is critical, the Radeon Pro 560 offers a more suitable profile. The database shows one winner in the direct benchmark, but the broader metric set reveals that each card has its own domain of advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla K40m | AMD Radeon Pro 560 |

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

| Chip | GK110B | Polaris 21 |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 745 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 876 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1270 MHz, 5.1 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 81.28 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2880 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 240 | 64 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 52.56 GPixel/s | 14.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 210.2 GTexel/s | 58.05 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.046 TFLOPS | 1.858 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 245 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2013-11-21 | 2017-04-17 |

| Launch MSRP | 7,699 USD | Not recorded |