AMD Radeon Pro W5500 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded benchmark comparison between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 scores 45,615, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17,468. That places the AMD card 61.7% ahead, a substantial margin that reflects the generational gap between the two architectures.

To put the Tesla K40c's result in context, its OpenCL score of 17,468 sits near the top of a cluster of much more recent mainstream and integrated parts. The database shows the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17,509, only 0.2% higher, the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17,551, 0.5% higher, the AMD Radeon 780M at 17,588, 0.7% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17,639, a 1% advantage. This means the K40c, despite being a 2013-era compute card, delivers OpenCL performance that is statistically indistinguishable from a modern entry-level discrete GPU or high-end integrated graphics. It is not a slow card by any means; it is simply that the W5500 operates in a different performance tier.

The W5500's OpenCL score of 45,615 places it in a far more competitive grouping. Its nearest rivals, according to the database's average benchmark score metric, are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti at 15,548, the AMD Radeon R9 M380 at 15,521, the AMD Radeon RX 7700 at 15,852, and the AMD Radeon R9 370X at 15,862. Note that these rival scores are average benchmark scores across multiple tests, not the Geekbench OpenCL number, so they are not directly comparable to the 45,615 figure. What they do show is that the W5500's overall average score of 15,679 places it in the same performance envelope as a high-end GTX 10-series card and a modern midrange Radeon, with deltas of just 0.8%, 1%, -1.1%, and -1.2% respectively.

The head-to-head OpenCL result is the only direct comparison in the database, and it is a clean sweep: the AMD card wins the sole benchmark, while the Tesla card has zero wins. The 61.7% delta is substantial enough that no other test would likely change the overall verdict, but the database only records this one data point, so the analysis must rest on that.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 scores 45,615 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 17,468 for the NVIDIA Tesla K40c. The AMD card is 61.7% faster in this specific test.

Q: How does the Tesla K40c compare to other GPUs in its performance range?

A: The K40c's OpenCL score of 17,468 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509, 0.2% higher), AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, 0.5% higher), AMD Radeon 780M (17,588, 0.7% higher), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639, 1% higher). It sits squarely in that performance band.

Q: What is the W5500's overall benchmark position relative to its rivals?

A: The W5500's average benchmark score is 15,679. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti at 15,548 (0.8% lower), AMD Radeon R9 M380 at 15,521 (1% lower), AMD Radeon RX 7700 at 15,852 (1.1% higher), and AMD Radeon R9 370X at 15,862 (1.2% higher).

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K40c has 2,880 shading units, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 has 1,408. Despite having more than double the shading units, the K40c is significantly slower in OpenCL, indicating architectural efficiency differences.

Q: Which card supports more modern API versions?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The Tesla K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins in every measurable benchmark category in the database. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 61.7% higher, which is the only head-to-head test recorded. Beyond that single test, the W5500 shows wins across the broader benchmark suite it was tested with: PassMark G3D at 8,978, PassMark G2D at 806, PassMark GPU Compute at 4,804, and Geekbench Metal at 54,302. It also shows strong DirectX results in PassMark, with scores of 126 for DirectX 9, 56 for DirectX 11, 47 for DirectX 10, and 39 for DirectX 12.

The Tesla K40c's case is more nuanced. It does not win any recorded benchmark, but the data shows it is not a weak performer in absolute terms. Its OpenCL score of 17,468 is within 1% of the GeForce RTX 4060, which is a much newer card. This suggests the K40c is a viable compute engine for workloads that are well-suited to its Kepler architecture, particularly those that scale with raw shading unit count. The K40c has 2,880 shading units and a texture rate of 210.2 GTexel/s, which are high figures, but its pixel rate of 52.56 GPixel/s is lower than the W5500's 59.36 GPixel/s. The K40c also has a much larger memory pool at 12 GB versus 8 GB, which could be advantageous for very large datasets that fit within that capacity.

For practical use, the W5500 is the better choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL, Metal, or Vulkan, and for any modern graphics API. The K40c, with its end-of-life status and no display outputs, is a compute-only card. Its strength, if any, would be in scenarios where 12 GB of VRAM is necessary and the software is optimized for Kepler-era compute. The W5500, with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, also serves as a workstation display card, which the K40c cannot do.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The Tesla K40c uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the W5500 uses a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The K40c has 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The W5500 has 6,400 million transistors on a much smaller 158 mm² die, giving a density of 40.5 million per mm².

Clock speeds are dramatically different. The K40c runs at a base of 745 MHz and boost of 876 MHz, with memory at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The W5500 runs at 1744 MHz base and 1855 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). This clock advantage helps explain the W5500's performance lead despite having fewer cores.

Memory configurations differ in size, type, bus width, and bandwidth. The K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s. The W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s. The K40c has more memory and more bandwidth, but the W5500's GDDR6 operates at a higher effective speed.

Compute unit counts differ significantly. The K40c has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The W5500 has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite this, the W5500 achieves higher FP32 throughput at 5.224 TFLOPS versus 5.046 TFLOPS for the K40c. The W5500 also offers FP16 at 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1), while the K40c has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and physical specifications are also divergent. The K40c has a TDP of 245 W, is dual-slot, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The W5500 has a TDP of 125 W, is single-slot, requires only 1x 6-pin, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The K40c is 267 mm long (10.5 inches), while the W5500 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches).

The bus interface differs: K40c uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the W5500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are a major differentiator: the K40c has no outputs, while the W5500 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is the core reason for their performance disparity. The NVIDIA Tesla K40c is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK180 chip. It belongs to the Tesla Kepler generation. Kepler was designed for compute efficiency in the early 2010s, with a focus on FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth. The K40c's 2,880 shading units are organized in a configuration that predates many of the modern scheduling and cache optimizations found in later architectures.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is built on RDNA 1.0, the first generation of AMD's RDNA architecture, using the Navi 14 chip. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation. RDNA was a ground-up redesign that improved instruction-level parallelism, reduced latency, and increased clock speeds relative to AMD's previous GCN architecture. This is why the W5500, with fewer shading units (1,408 versus 2,880), can achieve higher FP32 throughput (5.224 TFLOPS versus 5.046 TFLOPS) and a much higher OpenCL score.

The process node difference is stark: 28 nm for Kepler versus 7 nm for RDNA 1.0. This allows the W5500 to pack 40.5 million transistors per mm² versus 12.6 million per mm² for the K40c, enabling higher clocks and better efficiency. The W5500's 125 W TDP, less than half of the K40c's 245 W, is a direct result of this process advantage.

Cache and memory architecture differences, while not fully specified in the database, are implied by the memory subsystem differences. The K40c relies on a wide 384-bit GDDR5 interface to reach 288.4 GB/s, while the W5500 uses a narrower 128-bit GDDR6 interface at 224.0 GB/s. The RDNA architecture typically uses a larger L2 cache and more efficient memory compression, which helps compensate for the narrower bus.

API support reflects the architectural generation. The K40c supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning it is feature-limited compared to the W5500's DirectX 12 (12_1). Vulkan support is also older on the K40c (1.2.175) versus the W5500's Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the underlying driver paths are fundamentally different.

The K40c has no FP16 support recorded, while the W5500 offers FP16 at 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1). This is critical for modern machine learning and compute workloads that use mixed precision. The K40c also lacks any ray tracing or tensor core functionality, as does the W5500, but the W5500's RDNA architecture is better suited to modern shader-heavy workloads.

In summary, the recorded data shows a clear generational divide. The W5500 leverages a modern process node, higher clocks, and a more efficient architecture to deliver superior performance with lower power consumption and a smaller physical footprint. The K40c remains a capable compute card for its era, but its architecture is fundamentally older, and the benchmark results reflect that.