AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 leads with an average benchmark score of 41,897, compared to the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 37,157. The M40 also holds a higher percentile rank, sitting at 83rd percentile versus the W6400's 80th.

Q: How does the Tesla M40 perform in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads?

A: The Tesla M40 wins both head-to-head tests. It scores 39,192 in Geekbench OpenCL and 44,602 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Radeon PRO W6400 scores 35,027 and 39,286 respectively. The M40 leads by 11.9% in OpenCL and 13.5% in Vulkan.

Q: Which GPU uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses a 6 nm process, while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 uses a 28 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC. The W6400's process node results in a much higher transistor density of 50.5M per mm², versus 13.3M per mm² for the M40.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W power supply, using an 8-pin EPS connector. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has a TDP of 50 W, requires only a 250 W power supply, and uses no power connectors.

Q: Do these cards have different memory configurations?

A: Yes. The Tesla M40 features 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W6400 features 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?**

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The NVIDIA Tesla M40 was released in November 2015, and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 was released in January 2022.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM200 chip, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 24 chip. This represents a significant generational gap in design philosophy.

The M40 uses a 28 nm process with 8,000 million transistors on a large 601 mm² die. The W6400 uses a 6 nm process with 5,400 million transistors on a compact 107 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the RDNA 2.0 part packs 50.5M transistors per mm², while Maxwell 2.0 manages only 13.3M.

The M40 is a compute-focused accelerator with no display outputs, designed for server workloads. The W6400 is a workstation card with 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suitable for visual output tasks.

Architectural features differ notably. The W6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the M40. The M40 counters with a massive shader array: 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The W6400 uses 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

API support shows the generational gap. The M40 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing and mesh shaders. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock speeds also reflect the architectural differences. The M40 runs at 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. The W6400 runs at 2039 MHz base and 2321 MHz boost, nearly double the clock rate. However, the M40's much larger core configuration gives it the overall compute advantage in the recorded benchmarks.

The M40 is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long, while the W6400 is single-slot. Power delivery is equally divergent: the M40 consumes 250 W and needs an 8-pin EPS connector, whereas the W6400 draws only 50 W and uses no power connector. The M40 also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split. The NVIDIA Tesla M40 wins both recorded benchmarks, taking 2 wins to 0. This means for raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, the M40 is the superior choice.

The M40's advantage comes from its massive compute resources. With 3,072 shading units and 96 ROPs, it produces 6.832 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The W6400 produces 3.565 TFLOPS FP32, roughly half. The M40 also achieves higher pixel rate (106.8 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.5 GTexel/s), versus the W6400's 74.27 GPixel/s and 111.4 GTexel/s.

The W6400's strengths lie elsewhere. It has a 6 nm process, drawing only 50 W with a much higher transistor density. Its FP16 performance is 7.130 TFLOPS, which exceeds its own FP32 rate due to the 2:1 ratio, a feature the M40 lacks entirely. The W6400's ray tracing cores make it suitable for workloads that leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

The W6400 also wins on power efficiency. The M40 uses 250 W to produce its scores, while the W6400 uses 50 W. Relative to its power draw, the W6400 is more efficient in the recorded benchmarks.

For memory, the M40 wins on capacity and bandwidth. Its 12 GB GDDR5 with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the W6400's 4 GB GDDR6 with 128.0 GB/s. However, the W6400 uses faster GDDR6 memory with a 16 Gbps effective clock, versus the M40's 6 Gbps effective GDDR5.

The verdict is workload-dependent. For pure compute and large datasets, the M40 wins. For low-power workloads, display output, and ray tracing, the W6400 wins.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field.

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla M40 | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 |

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

| Chip | GM200 | Navi 24 |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 5,400 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 948 MHz | 2039 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 110 MHz | 2321 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 768 |

| TMUs | 192 | 48 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| RT Cores | None | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.8 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.5 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.832 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | None | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Release Date | 2015-11-09 | 2022-01-18 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent victory for the NVIDIA Tesla M40 in both tests. The margin is moderate, but the M40 leads across the board.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the M40 scores 39,192 against the W6400's 35,027. That is an 11.9% lead. This result aligns with the M40's raw compute advantage: it has 6.832 TFLOPS of FP32 versus 3.565 TFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth is more than double (288.4 GB/s vs 128.0 GB/s). The OpenCL workload likely scales with shader count and bandwidth, both heavily favoring the M40.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the M40 scores 44,602 against the W6400's 39,286. The lead is 13.5%, slightly larger than in OpenCL. Vulkan workloads can be more sensitive to driver efficiency and architectural design. The M40's Maxwell architecture, despite being older, executes these tasks effectively. The W6400's RDNA 2.0 also features a Vulkan 1.4 driver, but the score indicates it cannot overcome the raw throughput gap.

The M40 wins both tests, giving it a 2-0 record in head-to-head benchmarks. The W6400 has no wins in the recorded data.

The nearest rival data provides context. The M40's average score of 41,897 is 0.5% higher than the Tesla M40 24 GB variant, which scores 41,707. It is 1.7% higher than the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (41,187). The M40 also outscores the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (40,470) by 2.5%. The only rival above the M40 is the RX 7650 GRE, which scores 42,723, a 1.9% lead for that card.

The W6400's average score of 37,157 sits close to its nearest rivals. It is 0.9% below the Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507), 1.3% below the Tesla P4 (37,628), and 1.3% below the RTX 4070 (37,648). It leads the GTX TITAN X (36,530) by 1.7%.

The data shows the M40 sits comfortably above the W6400 in raw performance, but the gap is not massive. An 11.9% to 13.5% lead is meaningful but not overwhelming.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA Tesla M40 if raw compute performance is the sole priority. The recorded benchmarks show it ahead by 11.9% in OpenCL and 13.5% in Vulkan. Its FP32 throughput is nearly double the W6400's, and its memory bandwidth is more than double. It also comes with 12 GB of VRAM versus 4 GB, which is a significant advantage for work large datasets that exceed 4 GB.

The M40 is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, so it belongs in servers or compute nodes, not desktop workstations. Its 250 W TDP and 600 W PSU requirement make it a heavier installation. Its dual-slot size also occupies more space.

Choose the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 if power efficiency, display output, or ray tracing matters. It draws 50 W, a fraction of the M40's draw, and requires no power connector. It has 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it a drop-in workstation card. The W6400 also has 12 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, features absent from the M40.

The W6400's FP16 performance is 7.130 TFLOPS, which is higher than its FP32 and could benefit workloads using reduced precision. The M40 has no FP16 support listed.

The data does not show the W6400 winning any benchmark. But the gap is moderate, and the W6400 trades compute for massive efficiency gains. The M40 uses 5 times more power to deliver about 12% more performance in the recorded scores.

For a compute cluster that prioritizes aggregate throughput, the M40 is the better choice. For a power-constrained environment or a desktop workstation with display needs, the W6400 is the better fit. The generation gap shows: the M40 relies on brute shader count, the W6400 on a modern 6 nm process and high clock speeds.

Both are end-of-life products, so availability and support should be considered, but the recorded data provides a clear performance pecking order.