AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB reaches 6.832 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon RX 480 reaches 5.834 TFLOPS FP32. The Tesla M40 leads by roughly 17% in peak single-precision throughput.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla M40 24 GB delivers 288.4 GB/s over a 384-bit bus, while the RX 480 delivers 256.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus. The M40 holds a 12.7% bandwidth advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between them?

A: The Tesla M40 24 GB averages 41707 across recorded tests, while the RX 480 averages 33997. That places the M40 about 22.7% higher in overall average score, and the M40 sits at the 83rd percentile versus the RX 480's 78th percentile.

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL?

A: The RX 480 scores 37998 in Geekbench OpenCL, narrowly edging the M40's 37439, a 1.5% margin in favor of AMD.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan?

A: The M40 scores 45975 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 45968 for the RX 480, a negligible 0% difference. Effectively a tie.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Tesla M40 is rated at 250 W TDP with a suggested 600 W PSU, while the RX 480 is rated at 150 W TDP with a suggested 450 W PSU. The M40 also uses an 8-pin EPS connector, whereas the RX 480 uses a single 6-pin connector.

Architecture Differences

The Tesla M40 24 GB is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM200 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm TSMC process. The RX 480 uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip, built on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. This process gap explains a significant difference in transistor density: the M40 packs 8,000 million transistors across a 601 mm² die, yielding 13.3M transistors per mm², while the RX 480 fits 5,700 million transistors into 232 mm², reaching 24.6M per mm². The RX 480 is nearly half the die size but achieves nearly double the density.

The M40's Maxwell design prioritizes raw throughput with 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RX 480 counters with 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. The ROP disparity is stark: 96 versus 32, which directly impacts pixel fill rate. The M40 records 106.8 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s for the RX 480, a 2.6x advantage for NVIDIA. Texture rate is closer: 213.5 GTexel/s versus 182.3 GTexel/s, a 17% lead for the M40.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The M40 offers 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the RX 480 offers 8 GB on a 256-bit bus. Both use GDDR5, but the M40's wider bus gives it 288.4 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Clock speeds favor AMD: the RX 480 runs at 1120 MHz base and 1266 MHz boost, while the M40 runs at 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. Memory clocks also favor AMD at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the M40, though the M40's wider bus still wins overall bandwidth.

Feature support differs in API levels. The M40 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The M40 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version. The M40 has no display outputs, meaning it is a compute-oriented accelerator, while the RX 480 includes 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The RX 480 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio matching its FP32 rate (5.834 TFLOPS), while the M40 lists no FP16 capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the RX 480 scores 37998 against the M40's 37439. The delta is 1.5% in AMD's favor, a narrow margin but a real one. This result is notable because the M40 has higher FP32 throughput, more memory bandwidth, and more shading units. The RX 480's higher boost clock (1266 MHz versus 1112 MHz) and its denser 14 nm process may help close the theoretical gap in this workload. Still, a 1.5% difference is within run-to-run variance for many synthetic tests, so the data should be read as near-parity in OpenCL rather than a decisive AMD win.

In Vulkan, the M40 scores 45975 versus 45968 for the RX 480. The delta rounds to 0%. This is effectively a statistical tie. Both cards land within 7 points of each other on a test where scores are in the tens of thousands. The M40's newer Vulkan 1.4 API support does not appear to grant a meaningful advantage in this specific benchmark, nor does the RX 480's GCN architecture show any Vulkan-specific edge.

The overall wins tally shows one win each: the RX 480 takes OpenCL, the M40 takes Vulkan by a hair. The average benchmark scores, however, tell a different story. The M40's average of 41707 is built from two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the RX 480's average of 33997 includes four tests: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (966), Geekbench Metal (51057), OpenCL (37998), and Vulkan (45968). The Metal score of 51057 lifts the RX 480's average, yet it still trails the M40's average by 22.7%. The M40's percentile ranking of 83 versus 78 for the RX 480 reflects this overall gap.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides context. The M40's closest competitor is the original NVIDIA Tesla M40 at an average score of 41897, a 0.5% difference, meaning the 24 GB variant is essentially identical in compute performance to the original. The M40 also sits 1.3% above the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (41187) and 2% above the Radeon Pro 5300 (40870), while trailing the RX 7650 GRE by 2.4% (42723). The RX 480's nearest rival is the Radeon HD 7950 at 33951, a 0.1% difference, with the RX 560 XT (34133) 0.4% ahead, the RX 7700S (33849) 0.4% behind, and the RTX A2000 12 GB (34154) 0.5% ahead. Both cards sit in tightly contested performance bands relative to their immediate peers.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB | AMD Radeon RX 480 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Chip | GM200 | Ellesmere |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 948 MHz | 1120 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1112 MHz | 1266 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 192 | 144 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.8 GPixel/s | 40.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.5 GTexel/s | 182.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.832 TFLOPS | 5.834 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 150 W |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions (Length) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 240 mm (9.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-11-09 | 2016-06-28 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 229 USD |

The two cards differ in nearly every physical and electrical specification. The M40 is longer, consumes 100 W more, and requires a stronger PSU. The RX 480 is shorter, has a defined height and width (95 mm and 35 mm respectively), and draws far less power.

Where Each One Wins

The M40 24 GB wins in scenarios that stress raw compute throughput and memory capacity. Its 6.832 TFLOPS FP32, 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 24 GB of VRAM make it suited for large dataset processing, scientific compute, and workloads that fit entirely in GPU memory. The 96 ROPs deliver 106.8 GPixel/s, more than 2.6x the RX 480's pixel rate, which matters for fill-rate-bound tasks. The M40's DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level and Vulkan 1.4 support also give it a newer API baseline. Its 83rd percentile ranking versus all GPUs places it above the RX 480's 78th percentile.

The RX 480 wins in efficiency and display-oriented use cases. It draws 150 W versus 250 W, requires a 450 W PSU versus 600 W, and uses a single 6-pin connector versus an 8-pin EPS. It has native display outputs (1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the M40 has none, making the RX 480 the only one of the two that can drive a monitor directly. Its FP16 support at 1:1 ratio (5.834 TFLOPS) is useful for workloads that leverage half-precision math. In the recorded OpenCL test, it edges out the M40 by 1.5%.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. For compute-heavy workloads where memory capacity and raw FP32 matter, the Tesla M40 24 GB is the stronger choice. It has 3x the VRAM, 12.7% more bandwidth, 17% more FP32 throughput, and a 22.7% higher average benchmark score. Its 96 ROPs and 106.8 GPixel/s pixel rate are in a different class from the RX 480's 32 ROPs and 40.51 GPixel/s. The M40 also ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile distribution (83 versus 78).

For a user who needs a card with display outputs, lower power draw, and FP16 capability, the RX 480 is the practical pick. It is the only one of the two that can connect to monitors, consumes 40% less power (150 W versus 250 W), and offers a 1:1 FP16 rate. Its OpenCL score is marginally higher, and its smaller physical footprint (240 mm versus 267 mm length) makes it easier to fit in compact systems. Its launch MSRP was 229 USD, though no comparable price data exists for the M40 in the database.

The benchmark results indicate that in the two shared tests, the cards are nearly inseparable: a 1.5% OpenCL edge for AMD and a 0% Vulkan tie. The M40's overall advantage comes from its higher peak compute and memory resources, not from a dominant showing in any single recorded test. The RX 480's advantage comes from efficiency, connectivity, and feature breadth. Neither card dominates the other across every metric. The M40 is the compute specialist; the RX 480 is the general-purpose card with a display path. The recorded data supports choosing the M40 for server or compute-accelerator duties and the RX 480 for desktop use where power, outputs, and FP16 matter.