AMD Radeon RX 460 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison
AMD Radeon RX 460
Tesla K40c
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Radeon RX 460 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload type. The AMD Radeon RX 460 wins the only head-to-head comparison available, but the NVIDIA Tesla K40c dominates in raw compute throughput and memory capacity. The RX 460 takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 17,855 against the Tesla K40c’s 17,468, a 2.2% margin. That single victory, however, belies the fundamentally different design goals of these two cards.
The RX 460 is built for efficiency and modern API support. Its GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process delivers 2.150 TFLOPS of FP32 compute while drawing only 75 W. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, making it the more versatile option for contemporary gaming and consumer workloads. Its benchmark suite shows strength across three APIs: 17,065 in Geekbench Metal, 17,855 in OpenCL, and 20,198 in Vulkan — the Vulkan score being its standout result. The 62nd percentile ranking among all GPUs places it just ahead of the Tesla K40c’s 61st percentile, and its average benchmark score of 18,373 slightly exceeds the Tesla’s 17,468.
The Tesla K40c wins in every category that matters for professional compute. Its 5.046 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than double the RX 460’s 2.150 TFLOPS. The 12 GB GDDR5 memory with a 384-bit bus provides 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth — 2.6 times the RX 460’s 112.0 GB/s. Pixel rate is 52.56 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 210.2 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s. The Kepler architecture packs 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs into a 561 mm² die with 7,080 million transistors, all running at a modest 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost clock. It was designed for compute clusters, not consumer displays — it has no display outputs at all.
The Verdict
The RX 460 is the card for anyone running modern graphics APIs, especially Vulkan. Its Vulkan score of 20,198 is the single highest benchmark result between the two cards, and it outperforms the Tesla K40c in OpenCL by 2.2%. The 62nd percentile ranking versus 61st confirms the RX 460’s edge in the aggregate benchmark database. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) whereas the Tesla K40c only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). With a 75 W TDP and no power connectors required, it is a drop-in solution for existing systems with a 250 W suggested PSU.
The Tesla K40c is the pick for raw compute throughput and memory-bound workloads. Its 5.046 TFLOPS FP32 and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth are in a different class, and the 12 GB frame buffer dwarfs the RX 460’s 2 GB. The 245 W TDP and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors indicate a card built for workstations with adequate power delivery. The 550 W suggested PSU is a firm requirement. Its OpenCL score of 17,468 trails the RX 460, but its architectural advantages in compute density and memory capacity make it the more capable card for large datasets and parallel processing tasks.
The data does not support a single universal winner. The RX 460 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, but the Tesla K40c’s hardware specifications suggest it would win any compute-heavy workload that fits within its 12 GB memory envelope. The RX 460’s modern API support and lower power draw make it the better all-rounder for consumer use, while the Tesla K40c remains a specialized tool for compute acceleration.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The sole direct comparison is Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 460 scores 17,855 against the Tesla K40c’s 17,468, a 2.2% advantage. This result is notable because the Tesla K40c has 2,880 shading units and 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput — more than double the RX 460’s 896 shading units and 2.150 TFLOPS. The fact that the RX 460 still wins suggests that OpenCL performance in this test is not purely a function of raw compute throughput. Architecture efficiency and driver optimization play a significant role.
The RX 460’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database provide context. Its average score of 18,373 sits 0.1% below the Intel Arc A770M (18,383), 0.9% below the AMD FirePro D500 (18,533), 1.0% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18,189), and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18,159). These are all modern or mid-range parts, and the RX 460 holds its own within this cluster.
The Tesla K40c’s nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average score of 17,468 is 0.2% below the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509), 0.5% below the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551), 0.7% below the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588), and 1.0% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639). The Tesla K40c, released years earlier, is competitive with these newer parts in OpenCL despite its age. This indicates that its Kepler architecture, while outdated in API support, still delivers respectable compute performance.
The RX 460’s other benchmark results reinforce its versatility. Its Vulkan score of 20,198 is substantially higher than its OpenCL score of 17,855, suggesting that the card’s GCN 4.0 architecture is particularly well-optimized for Vulkan workloads. The Metal score of 17,065 is the lowest of the three, but still within 3.5% of the OpenCL result.
FAQ
Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The AMD Radeon RX 460 has an average benchmark score of 18,373, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17,468. The RX 460 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 62 versus 61.
Q: How do the cards compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?
A: The Tesla K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.0 GB/s. The Tesla K40c has 2.6 times the bandwidth and six times the memory capacity.
Q: What API support differences exist between the two cards?
A: The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Tesla K40c supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 460 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.
Q: Which card has better raw compute specifications?
A: The Tesla K40c has 5.046 TFLOPS FP32, 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RX 460 has 2.150 TFLOPS FP32, 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Tesla K40c has more than double the FP32 throughput and three times the shading units.
Q: What are the power requirements for each card?
A: The RX 460 has a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The Tesla K40c has a 245 W TDP, requires 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU.
Q: Which card is better for a system without external power connectors?
A: The RX 460 is the only viable option, as it requires no power connectors and draws only 75 W. The Tesla K40c requires two power connectors and draws 245 W.
Architecture Differences
The two cards represent fundamentally different architectural philosophies. The RX 460 uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. It has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, packed into a 123 mm² die with 3,000 million transistors. The transistor density is 24.4 million per mm². The chip is codenamed Baffin and belongs to the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation, released on 2016-08-07. It succeeded the Pirate Islands architecture and was itself succeeded by Polaris.
The Tesla K40c uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process. It has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, on a 561 mm² die with 7,080 million transistors. The transistor density is 12.6 million per mm². The chip is codenamed GK180 and belongs to the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation, released on 2013-10-07. It succeeded Tesla Fermi and was succeeded by Tesla Maxwell.
The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm. This explains the RX 460’s dramatically higher transistor density (24.4M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm²) despite having fewer total transistors. The RX 460 also operates at higher clocks — 1090 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost versus the Tesla K40c’s 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. The memory clocks also differ: the RX 460 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) while the Tesla K40c runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).
The memory subsystems are entirely different in scale. The RX 460 has a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla K40c has a 384-bit bus with 12 GB of GDDR5 and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla K40c’s memory bandwidth is 2.6 times higher, and its capacity is six times larger. This makes the Tesla K40c the clear choice for workloads that need to hold large datasets in VRAM.
The bus interfaces differ as well: the RX 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 while the Tesla K40c uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Tesla K40c’s full x16 bandwidth is another advantage for compute workloads that stream data from system memory. Physical dimensions also differ: the RX 460 is 170 mm (6.7 inches) long, while the Tesla K40c is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long. Both are dual-slot cards, but the Tesla K40c is substantially larger.
Display outputs are a major differentiator. The RX 460 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Tesla K40c has no display outputs at all, confirming its role as a compute-only accelerator. The RX 460’s FP16 support is 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the Tesla K40c has no FP16 capability listed. This makes the RX 460 more suitable for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic.