AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 across all shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD part scores 53,757 against the NVIDIA Tesla M40's 39,192, a delta of 37.2% in favor of the AMD card. This is not a marginal gap; it represents a substantial lead in raw compute throughput for general-purpose workloads that leverage OpenCL.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The Radeon Pro Vega 48 achieves 57,653 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Tesla M40 manages 44,602. The delta here is 29.3%, again favoring the AMD card. Notably, the AMD GPU's Vulkan score is higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting strong driver optimization for the Vulkan API, whereas the Tesla M40 shows a smaller improvement from OpenCL to Vulkan, moving from 39,192 to 44,602.

The head-to-head comparison yields a clean sweep: AMD wins both tests, with winsA equal to 2 and winsB equal to 0. The average benchmark score for the Radeon Pro Vega 48 is 60,140, placing it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Tesla M40's average score is 41,897, corresponding to the 83rd percentile. The gap in average scores is roughly 43.5%, which aligns with the per-test deltas. When contextualized against nearest rivals, the AMD card sits within 0.3% of both the Intel Arc Pro A60 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 in average score, indicating it is competitive with much newer or higher-tier hardware in these specific synthetic benchmarks. The Tesla M40, by contrast, is within 0.5% of its own 24 GB variant and within 1.7% of the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, suggesting its performance class is closer to mid-range modern GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is fundamental and explains the benchmark disparity. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is built on the Vega 10 chip using GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA Tesla M40 uses the GM200 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, produced on TSMC's 28 nm node. It contains 8,000 million transistors across a larger 601 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 13.3 million per mm². The smaller process node gives AMD a clear manufacturing advantage, allowing more transistors in less space.

Memory subsystems differ markedly. The AMD card uses 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and memory clock of 786 MHz, achieving 1572 Mbps effective and a bandwidth of 402.4 GB/s. The Tesla M40 employs 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, clocked at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, delivering 288.4 GB/s. Despite having 4 GB less capacity, the AMD card provides nearly 40% more bandwidth, which is critical for compute-heavy workloads. The HBM2's wide bus compensates for its lower clock speed, a design trade-off that proves beneficial.

Compute resources are comparable in count but differ in implementation. Both cards feature 3072 shading units and 192 texture mapping units. However, the AMD card has 64 ROPs, while the Tesla M40 has 96 ROPs, giving NVIDIA an advantage in pixel throughput (106.8 GPixel/s vs. 76.80 GPixel/s). Texture rates are close: 230.4 GTexel/s for AMD versus 213.5 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 performance slightly favors AMD at 7.373 TFLOPS versus 6.832 TFLOPS. Critically, the AMD card supports FP16 at 14.75 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, while the Tesla M40 has no FP16 capability listed, making the AMD part substantially more flexible for mixed-precision workloads.

The Tesla M40's clock behavior is explicit: 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. The AMD card's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, only its memory clock. This makes direct clock comparisons impossible, but the benchmark results show that AMD's architectural efficiency compensates regardless. The Tesla M40 has a listed TDP of 250 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W, while the AMD card has no TDP figure recorded. The Tesla M40 requires an 8-pin EPS connector and is dual-slot, with a length of 267 mm. The AMD card is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and slot width listed as IGP, meaning it is designed for direct board integration rather than discrete installation.

API support is broadly similar, with both cards supporting DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan. However, the Tesla M40 lists Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card lists Vulkan 1.3. The AMD card's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its IGP nature, whereas the Tesla M40 has no outputs at all, as it is a compute-focused accelerator.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 53,757 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 37.2% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla M40's 39,192. This is a substantial lead in compute workloads.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the Tesla M40 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 8 GB of HBM2 on the AMD card. However, the AMD card has significantly higher bandwidth at 402.4 GB/s compared to 288.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD Vega 10 has a transistor density of 25.3 million per mm², while the NVIDIA GM200 has 13.3 million per mm². This reflects the 14 nm versus 28 nm process node difference.

Q: Which card supports FP16 computation?

A: Only the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 supports FP16, with a rate of 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1). The NVIDIA Tesla M40 has no FP16 capability listed in the database.

Q: How do the cards compare in pixel and texture rates?

A: The Tesla M40 has a higher pixel rate at 106.8 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s for AMD, due to its 96 ROPs versus 64. Texture rates are closer: 213.5 GTexel/s for NVIDIA and 230.4 GTexel/s for AMD.

Q: What are the release dates and production statuses?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 was released on March 18, 2019, while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 was released on November 9, 2015. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. Process node: AMD uses 14 nm, NVIDIA uses 28 nm. Foundry: GlobalFoundries for AMD, TSMC for NVIDIA. Transistor count: 12,500 million for AMD versus 8,000 million for NVIDIA. Die size: 495 mm² for AMD versus 601 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor density: 25.3M per mm² versus 13.3M per mm².

Memory configuration: AMD has 8 GB HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA has 12 GB GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock: AMD runs at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective), NVIDIA at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Clock speeds: NVIDIA has explicit base (948 MHz) and boost (1112 MHz) clocks; AMD has no base or boost recorded.

Compute units: Both have 3072 shading units and 192 TMUs, but AMD has 64 ROPs versus NVIDIA's 96. Pixel rate: 76.80 GPixel/s for AMD, 106.8 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate: 230.4 GTexel/s for AMD, 213.5 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32: 7.373 TFLOPS for AMD, 6.832 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16: 14.75 TFLOPS for AMD, none for NVIDIA.

Power and physical: NVIDIA has a 250 W TDP, 600 W suggested PSU, 8-pin EPS connector, dual-slot width, and 267 mm length. AMD has no TDP, no power connectors, and is an IGP with no slot width. Display outputs: AMD is portable device dependent, NVIDIA has none. Release dates: March 18, 2019 for AMD, November 9, 2015 for NVIDIA. Vulkan support: AMD lists 1.3, NVIDIA lists 1.4.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 for any workload where compute performance is the primary concern. Its 37.2% lead in OpenCL and 29.3% lead in Vulkan are decisive, and its higher FP32 throughput (7.373 TFLOPS versus 6.832 TFLOPS) combined with FP16 support makes it more versatile for modern compute tasks. The 88th percentile ranking versus 83rd percentile further confirms its stronger overall position. The AMD card's HBM2 memory provides 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth, a significant advantage over the Tesla M40's 288.4 GB/s, which is likely a major contributor to its benchmark superiority.

The Tesla M40 retains advantages only in specific areas: more memory capacity (12 GB versus 8 GB), higher pixel rate (106.8 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s), and a longer track record with a 2015 release date. Its Maxwell architecture is older and lacks FP16 support, which limits its appeal for AI or mixed-precision workloads. The Tesla M40's only listed benchmarks are OpenCL and Vulkan, and it loses both to the AMD card. Its nearest rival comparison shows it is close to the RTX 3080 Ti in average score, but that does not mitigate its deficit against the Vega 48.

For buyers or system integrators prioritizing compute density, bandwidth, and modern API support, the Radeon Pro Vega 48 is the clear choice based on recorded measurements. The Tesla M40 might be selected only if 12 GB of memory capacity is a hard requirement, or if the IGP form factor of the AMD card is incompatible with the target system. Given its end-of-life status for both cards, the AMD part's later release date (2019 versus 2015) also suggests a longer potential support window. The data does not support any scenario where the Tesla M40 outperforms the AMD card in the tested benchmarks, making the verdict straightforward for compute-focused applications.