AMD Radeon RX 460 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40m Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K40m and AMD Radeon RX 460 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by nearly three years of GPU evolution. The data places them in a surprisingly close contest, with the Tesla K40m holding a slim overall advantage in the single shared benchmark, yet the RX 460 counters with a broader API feature set and vastly superior efficiency metrics. The head-to-head results reveal a professional-grade compute card from 2013 still trading blows with a mainstream consumer card from 2016, which invites a closer look at what each architecture prioritizes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Tesla K40m scores 19,885 against the AMD Radeon RX 460’s 17,855. That works out to an 11.4% lead for the Tesla K40m, a meaningful margin that reflects its compute-focused design. The RX 460, however, does not go down quietly — its Geekbench Vulkan score of 20,198 actually exceeds the Tesla K40m’s OpenCL result, though these are different APIs and not directly comparable. Still, it suggests the RX 460 is no slouch in modern workloads.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Tesla K40m averages 19,885 across its single recorded test, while the RX 460 averages 18,373 across three tests (OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan). The RX 460’s Metal score of 17,065 is its weakest showing, while its Vulkan score of 20,198 is its strongest. This spread indicates the RX 460’s performance is highly API-dependent, whereas the Tesla K40m’s single OpenCL score of 19,885 represents a more monolithic compute profile.

Context from nearest rivals sharpens the picture. The Tesla K40m sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, with its closest competitor being the AMD FirePro W7000 at 19,905 (a mere 0.1% difference), followed by the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19,765 (0.6% behind) and the AMD FirePro D300 at 19,637 (1.3% behind). The RX 460, at the 62nd percentile, trails its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A770M, by just 0.1% (18,383 vs. 18,373), while the AMD FirePro D500 sits 0.9% ahead and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is 1% behind. These tight deltas show both cards are clustered with peers of similar compute capability, but the Tesla K40m’s raw score gives it the edge in raw OpenCL throughput.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is stark. The Tesla K40m uses the GK110B chip on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The RX 460, by contrast, uses the Baffin chip on AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, achieving a far higher density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The RX 460’s newer node allows it to pack more transistors per area despite having fewer than half the total transistors of the Tesla K40m.

Compute resources diverge dramatically. The Tesla K40m fields 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units, while the RX 460 offers just 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This explains the Tesla K40m’s higher theoretical throughput: 5.046 TFLOPS FP32 against the RX 460’s 2.150 TFLOPS. The RX 460 does support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (2.150 TFLOPS), while the Tesla K40m lists no FP16 capability — a sign of its older design predating the half-precision push in consumer GPUs.

Memory configurations are equally divergent. The Tesla K40m carries 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 460 has just 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, halving bandwidth to 112.0 GB/s. Clock speeds tell the opposite story: the RX 460 runs at 1,090 MHz base and 1,200 MHz boost, while the Tesla K40m is slower at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost, with memory at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the RX 460’s 1,750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The Tesla K40m’s wider bus compensates for lower clocks, but the RX 460’s faster memory clock shows the newer design’s efficiency.

Power and physical specs reinforce the philosophical divide. The Tesla K40m draws 245 W TDP with a suggested 550 W power supply, while the RX 460 sips at 75 W TDP with a 250 W PSU suggestion. The Tesla K40m is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) with no display outputs, whereas the RX 460 is also dual-slot but shorter at 170 mm (6.7 inches) and provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Tesla K40m uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 460 operates on PCIe 3.0 x8.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K40m leads with 19,885 versus the AMD Radeon RX 460’s 17,855, an 11.4% advantage for the Tesla K40m.

Q: Does the RX 460 outperform the Tesla K40m in any benchmark?

A: Yes — in Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 460 scores 20,198, which exceeds the Tesla K40m’s OpenCL score of 19,885. However, these are different APIs, so direct comparison is not apples-to-apples.

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

A: The RX 460 has a density of 24.4 million transistors per mm², nearly double the Tesla K40m’s 12.6 million per mm², due to the newer 14 nm process versus 28 nm.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Tesla K40m has a 245 W TDP and suggests a 550 W power supply, while the RX 460 has a 75 W TDP and suggests only 250 W. The RX 460 also requires no power connectors, whereas the Tesla K40m’s connector setup is not specified.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Tesla K40m offers 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 460 has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The Tesla K40m supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, giving it a more modern DirectX and Vulkan implementation.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla K40m | AMD Radeon RX 460 |

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

| Chip | GK110B | Baffin |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 4.0 |

| Generation | Tesla Kepler (Kxx) | Arctic Islands (RX 400) |

| 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 | 1,090 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 876 MHz | 1,200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps) | 1,750 MHz (7 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2,880 | 896 |

| TMUs | 240 | 56 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 52.56 GPixel/s | 19.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 210.2 GTexel/s | 67.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.046 TFLOPS | 2.150 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 245 W | 75 W |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.3 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 170 mm (6.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-11-21 | 2016-08-07 |

| Predecessor | Tesla Fermi | Pirate Islands |

| Successor | Tesla Maxwell | Polaris |

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

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two cards built for different worlds. The NVIDIA Tesla K40m wins the only direct benchmark comparison, posting an 11.4% higher Geekbench OpenCL score (19,885 vs. 17,855), and it dominates in raw compute specs: 5.046 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.150 TFLOPS, 288.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s, and 12 GB memory versus 2 GB. Its 65th percentile standing versus the RX 460’s 62nd percentile confirms its higher overall ranking among all GPUs.

Yet the RX 460 is not without arguments. Its 75 W TDP is less than one-third of the Tesla K40m’s 245 W, and it requires no external power connectors. It supports newer APIs — DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3 — compared to the Tesla K40m’s DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. It also has display outputs, making it usable in a standard desktop, whereas the Tesla K40m has none. The RX 460’s 20,198 Vulkan score suggests it handles modern workloads competitively, even if its OpenCL result trails.

The choice depends on the workload. For compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL and need massive memory capacity, the Tesla K40m is the clear pick. For a low-power, modern-API card that can drive displays, the RX 460 offers a more balanced profile. The Tesla K40m’s 7,699 USD launch MSRP also signals its professional positioning, though pricing analysis is beyond the data’s scope.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Tesla K40m wins on raw compute throughput. Its 5.046 TFLOPS FP32 performance is more than double the RX 460’s 2.150 TFLOPS. The 12 GB memory and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth provide 6x the capacity and over 2.5x the bandwidth of the RX 460, making it suited for large datasets and memory-intensive compute. Its pixel rate (52.56 GPixel/s) and texture rate (210.2 GTexel/s) are respectively 2.7x and 3.1x higher than the RX 460’s 19.20 GPixel/s and 67.20 GTexel/s, reinforcing its dominance in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The 11.4% OpenCL benchmark lead is the direct manifestation of this hardware advantage.

AMD Radeon RX 460 wins on efficiency and modern features. Its 75 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU make it dramatically more power-frugal than the Tesla K40m’s 245 W and 550 W requirements. The 14 nm process yields a transistor density of 24.4M per mm² versus 12.6M, showing architectural efficiency. It supports FP16 at 1:1 ratio, offers Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), and includes display outputs for direct monitor connection. Its shorter 170 mm length also fits smaller cases. While its OpenCL score trails, its Vulkan score of 20,198 exceeds the Tesla K40m’s OpenCL result, hinting at stronger performance in modern API-driven workloads.

In summary, the Tesla K40m is a compute specialist with unmatched memory and throughput for its era, while the RX 460 is a versatile, low-power card that leverages a newer process and API support to stay relevant. The data does not declare a universal winner — it reveals a trade-off between brute force and modern efficiency.