AMD Radeon RX 470 vs NVIDIA Tesla M60 Comparison

# NVIDIA Tesla M60 vs AMD Radeon RX 470

The NVIDIA Tesla M60 and AMD Radeon RX 470 occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, yet their benchmark averages land within 5% of each other. The Tesla M60, a Maxwell-based compute card from 2015, posts an average benchmark score of 30,490, while the RX 470, a GCN 4.0 part from 2016, averages 28,996. That gap of roughly 5% masks a fascinating inversion: the RX 470 wins both head-to-head compute tests decisively, but the M60 holds its own in the aggregate due to its dual-GPU nature and driver optimizations. The percentile rankings tell a similar story—75th for the M60, 74th for the RX 470—suggesting these are closely matched in overall standing despite their architectural gulf.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M60 averages 30,490 across all benchmark tests, while the AMD Radeon RX 470 averages 28,996—a difference of about 5.1% in favor of the M60.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 470 scores 33,568 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 12.1% higher than the M60's 29,506. This is one of the two head-to-head tests, and the RX 470 wins both.

Q: What is the Geekbench Vulkan result for each card?

A: The RX 470 achieves 39,884 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the M60's 31,473 by 21.1%. This is the largest performance delta between the two in any shared test.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Tesla M60 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 470 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the M60 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 470 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the RX 470?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 470 had a launch MSRP of 179 USD. The Tesla M60 has no listed launch MSRP, reflecting its data-center-oriented positioning.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card based on average score?

A: The M60's closest rival is the NVIDIA CMP 70HX (30,476, 0% delta), followed by the AMD Radeon RX 6700 (30,433, 0.2% delta). The RX 470's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874, 0.4% delta), with the Intel Arc A370M (29,175, -0.6% delta) close behind.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 470 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the dataset. In Geekbench OpenCL, it posts 33,568 versus 29,506 for the M60—a 12.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens to 21.1%, with the RX 470 scoring 39,884 against 31,473. This suggests the RX 470 is the more capable card for compute workloads that leverage OpenCL and Vulkan APIs, particularly those that scale well with higher clock speeds and newer architecture features.

The Tesla M60, despite losing both direct comparisons, still holds a higher average benchmark score (30,490 vs. 28,996) and a slightly better percentile rank (75th vs. 74th). This discrepancy can be attributed to the M60's dual-GPU design—the card effectively contains two GM204 chips, which may boost its performance in multi-GPU-aware workloads that are not captured in the single-GPU head-to-head tests. The M60 also shows strength in its nearest-rival comparisons: it sits within 1.8% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti, a much newer card, while the RX 470 trails the AMD Radeon RX 6800M by only 0.4% but is beaten by the Intel Arc A370M by 0.6%.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 470 is the clear winner. For those running workloads that can utilize multiple GPUs or that favor NVIDIA's compute stack, the M60's higher aggregate score suggests it may still be competitive in broader benchmark suites.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark. The Tesla M60 uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The RX 470, by contrast, uses the Ellesmere chip based on GCN 4.0, fabricated on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. It contains 5,700 million transistors in a much smaller 232 mm² die, achieving 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter—nearly double the density of the M60.

The M60's Maxwell architecture was designed for compute density in data centers, with no display outputs and a 300 W TDP. The RX 470's GCN 4.0 architecture was built for consumer graphics, featuring 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and a 120 W TDP. The M60 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 470 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3—a small but notable feature gap in API versions.

Memory configurations also diverge significantly. The M60 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 470 provides 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but with a higher 211.2 GB/s bandwidth due to faster memory clocks (6.6 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps effective). The M60's larger frame buffer is a data-center play, while the RX 470's faster memory serves consumer workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. Process node: 28 nm (M60) versus 14 nm (RX 470). Transistor count: 5,200 million versus 5,700 million. Die size: 398 mm² versus 232 mm². Transistor density: 13.1M/mm² versus 24.6M/mm². Clock speeds: the M60 runs at 557 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost, while the RX 470 runs at 926 MHz base and 1206 MHz boost—the RX 470's higher clocks are a direct result of the more efficient 14 nm process.

Memory differs in capacity (8 GB vs. 4 GB) and bandwidth (160.4 GB/s vs. 211.2 GB/s), though both use GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus. Shading units are identical at 2048, as are TMUs at 128. But ROPs differ: the M60 has 64, while the RX 470 has 32. This explains the M60's higher pixel rate of 75.39 GPixel/s versus 38.59 GPixel/s for the RX 470. Texture rates are nearly identical (150.8 GTexel/s for the M60, 154.4 GTexel/s for the RX 470), and FP32 compute is close (4.825 TFLOPS vs. 4.940 TFLOPS). Notably, the RX 470 also supports FP16 at 4.940 TFLOPS (1:1), a feature the M60 lacks entirely.

Power requirements are dramatically different: the M60 draws 300 W with a 1x 8-pin connector and a 700 W suggested PSU, while the RX 470 draws 120 W with a 1x 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. Physical dimensions also vary: the M60 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, while the RX 470 is 240 mm (9.4 inches) long, 95 mm (3.7 inches) tall, and 35 mm (1.4 inches) wide.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The dataset includes two head-to-head tests, and the AMD Radeon RX 470 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 470 scores 33,568 against the M60's 29,506—a 12.1% advantage. This is a substantial margin, suggesting that the RX 470's higher clock speeds (926 MHz base vs. 557 MHz) and newer architecture translate directly into OpenCL performance. The 14 nm process and higher memory bandwidth (211.2 GB/s vs. 160.4 GB/s) likely contribute to this result.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The RX 470 scores 39,884, which is 21.1% higher than the M60's 31,473. This 8,411-point difference is the single biggest performance gap in the comparison. Vulkan workloads often favor newer architectures with better driver support, and the RX 470's GCN 4.0 design appears to handle the API more efficiently than the M60's Maxwell 2.0. The M60's Vulkan 1.4 support suggests it is not lacking in API capability, yet the raw performance delta remains significant.

Interestingly, the M60's average benchmark score (30,490) is higher than either of its head-to-head results would predict, while the RX 470's average (28,996) is lower than its head-to-head scores. This implies the M60 performs relatively better in tests outside the head-to-head set—likely multi-GPU scenarios or compute workloads that leverage its dual-chip design. The RX 470's additional tests (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 842 and Geekbench Metal at 41,690) suggest it has strengths in other areas, but these do not directly compare to the M60.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the AMD Radeon RX 470 is the better single-GPU compute performer, winning both head-to-head tests with margins of 12.1% and 21.1%. Its higher clocks, faster memory, and newer 14 nm process give it a decisive edge in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. For users running these APIs, the RX 470 is the obvious choice—it delivers more performance at a fraction of the power draw (120 W vs. 300 W) and with a launch MSRP of 179 USD.

The NVIDIA Tesla M60, however, holds a higher average benchmark score (30,490 vs. 28,996) and a better percentile ranking (75th vs. 74th). This suggests that in a broader benchmark suite—one that might include multi-GPU-aware tests or NVIDIA-optimized compute libraries—the M60 can outperform its direct head-to-head results. Its 8 GB memory capacity and dual-GPU architecture make it a viable option for data-center workloads that exceed the RX 470's 4 GB frame buffer.

The choice comes down to workload. If your applications are single-GPU, OpenCL/Vulkan-based, and power-sensitive, the RX 470 wins decisively. If you need larger memory capacity, operate in a multi-GPU environment, or rely on NVIDIA's compute ecosystem, the M60's aggregate scores suggest it remains competitive despite its older architecture. The M60's 75th percentile and proximity to the RTX 3070 Ti (within 1.8%) indicate it punches above its weight class for a 2015 product. The RX 470's 74th percentile and near-parity with the RX 6800M (0.4% delta) show it is equally competitive in its own context. Neither card is obsolete by the numbers—but they serve fundamentally different masters.