AMD Radeon RX 5600M vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M and NVIDIA Tesla M40 serve fundamentally different purposes, but benchmark data shows the mobile AMD part is the faster compute device in the tested workloads. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the RX 5600M wins both, delivering a decisive 52% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and a solid 9.5% edge in Geekbench Vulkan. Despite the Tesla M40’s higher raw FP32 throughput and larger memory pool, its older Maxwell architecture and workstation-oriented design leave it behind in these synthetic tests. The data indicates the RX 5600M is the superior choice for general compute and API-agnostic performance, while the Tesla M40 retains relevance only in scenarios where its 12 GB memory capacity is the deciding factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 59,589 against the NVIDIA Tesla M40’s 39,192. That is a 52% delta in favor of AMD, a massive margin that highlights how effectively the RDNA 1.0 architecture translates its specifications into real-world compute performance. The RX 5600M achieves this with 2,304 shading units and a 5.829 TFLOPS FP32 rating, while the Tesla M40 fields 3,072 shading units and 6.832 TFLOPS — yet the NVIDIA part still loses by more than half. This suggests that the Tesla M40’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture is severely handicapped in OpenCL workloads, likely due to driver maturity or architectural inefficiencies that the benchmark exposes.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, is closer but still favors AMD. The RX 5600M posts 48,843, while the Tesla M40 manages 44,602, resulting in a 9.5% win for the mobile GPU. While not as lopsided as the OpenCL result, this margin is meaningful because Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API that should theoretically play to the Tesla M40’s strengths given its higher texture rate of 213.5 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 106.8 GPixel/s. Yet the RX 5600M’s 182.2 GTexel/s and 80.96 GPixel/s still prove sufficient, reinforcing that raw rasterization throughput does not automatically translate to API-level performance. The RX 5600M also has a 7 nm process advantage, which likely contributes to better instruction-level efficiency.

It is notably the Tesla M40 has no 3DMark Steel Nomad result, while the RX 5600M scores 1,320 in that DX12 test. This absence means the NVIDIA card cannot be evaluated in the latest DirectX 12 workloads, and its overall average benchmark score of 41,897 places it in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs. The RX 5600M, by contrast, averages 46,601 across its benchmarks, sitting in the 85th percentile. That 2-percentile gap, combined with the per-test deltas, paints a clear picture: the RX 5600M is the better performer in every measurable metric shared between the two.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M wins in every head-to-head comparison available in the data, making the case for its supremacy straightforward. In Geekbench OpenCL, its 52% lead is the single largest advantage, making it the clear choice for OpenCL-accelerated compute tasks such as physics simulations, image processing, or machine learning inference that rely on this API. Its Vulkan win, while smaller at 9.5%, still establishes it as the better option for Vulkan-based game engines or cross-platform compute frameworks. Additionally, the RX 5600M’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,320 gives it a measurable DX12 capability that the Tesla M40 simply does not possess in the data, making it the only candidate for modern DX12 gaming or rendering workloads.

The NVIDIA Tesla M40, on the other hand, wins no benchmark comparisons in the FACT PACK. Its only potential advantages are structural rather than performance-based. With 12 GB of GDDR5 memory compared to the RX 5600M’s 6 GB, the Tesla M40 can hold larger datasets in VRAM, which could be critical for specific workloads like training large neural networks or rendering massive scenes that exceed 6 GB. Its 384-bit memory bus also provides a bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s, which is virtually identical to the RX 5600M’s 288.0 GB/s, so memory bandwidth is not a differentiator. The Tesla M40’s 250 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest it was built for sustained compute in a server chassis, but the RX 5600M matches or exceeds its performance in the tested areas while consuming 100 W less power.

For users choosing between these two, the RX 5600M is the winner for any application that uses OpenCL, Vulkan, or DX12. The Tesla M40 only makes sense if the 12 GB memory capacity is an absolute requirement, and even then, its 83rd percentile ranking versus the RX 5600M’s 85th percentile indicates that the AMD part is generally the stronger GPU overall.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting their different release eras and design goals. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm TSMC process. It packs 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 41.0M per mm². The NVIDIA Tesla M40, in contrast, uses the GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm TSMC process. It contains 8,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 601 mm² die, resulting in just 13.3M transistors per mm². The process node difference alone — 7 nm versus 28 nm — explains a significant portion of the performance gap, as the smaller node allows for faster switching and lower power draw.

Core configuration also differs substantially. The RX 5600M has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the Tesla M40 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. On paper, the Tesla M40’s larger core count should give it an advantage, and indeed its FP32 throughput of 6.832 TFLOPS exceeds the RX 5600M’s 5.829 TFLOPS. However, the RX 5600M supports FP16 at 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which the Tesla M40 lacks entirely — a critical feature for AI and compute workloads that use reduced precision. Clock speeds also favor AMD: the RX 5600M boosts to 1265 MHz (with a 1190 MHz game clock), while the Tesla M40 boosts to just 1112 MHz. The RX 5600M’s higher clocks partially compensate for its fewer cores.

Memory architecture further differentiates the two. The RX 5600M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the Tesla M40 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. Bandwidth is nearly identical (288.0 GB/s vs 288.4 GB/s), but the Tesla M40’s larger capacity is offset by the RX 5600M’s newer memory technology. The RX 5600M also features a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus the Tesla M40’s PCIe 3.0 x16, offering double the theoretical bandwidth to the host system. Display outputs also differ: the RX 5600M is portable-device dependent, while the Tesla M40 has no outputs at all, confirming its compute-only role. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is one of the few areas where they are equal.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M is the superior GPU for virtually all compute and graphics workloads. It wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas of 52% and 9.5%, and holds a higher average benchmark score of 46,601 against the Tesla M40’s 41,897. The RX 5600M’s 85th percentile ranking versus the Tesla M40’s 83rd percentile further confirms its overall standing. Anyone choosing between these two should pick the RX 5600M if they need OpenCL, Vulkan, or DX12 performance, as it demonstrably outperforms the Tesla M40 in each shared test.

The Tesla M40 is only defensible in one narrow scenario: if a workload requires more than 6 GB of VRAM. Its 12 GB capacity is double the RX 5600M’s, and that could be the deciding factor for large-scale data processing or rendering tasks that cannot fit in the AMD card’s memory. However, the Tesla M40’s lack of FP16 support, lower clock speeds, and older architecture mean that even when memory fits, the RX 5600M will likely complete the task faster. The Tesla M40’s 250 W TDP and dual-slot form factor also make it a less practical choice for most systems, while the RX 5600M’s 150 W TDP and IGP slot width allow for integration into mobile or compact designs. For the vast majority of users, the RX 5600M is the clear winner. The Tesla M40 is a legacy compute card that the data shows has been surpassed by a newer, more efficient mobile GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600M has an average benchmark score of 46,601, while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 averages 41,897, giving AMD a significant lead.

Q: How much faster is the RX 5600M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 5600M scores 59,589 versus the Tesla M40’s 39,192, which is a 52% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No, the Tesla M40 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks. The RX 5600M wins both the Geekbench OpenCL test (52% delta) and the Geekbench Vulkan test (9.5% delta).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory. This makes the Tesla M40 better suited for workloads requiring more than 6 GB of VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has better FP16 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600M supports FP16 at 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 has no FP16 capability listed in the data.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The RX 5600M is built on a 7 nm TSMC process, while the Tesla M40 uses a 28 nm TSMC process. The RX 5600M also has a much higher transistor density at 41.0M per mm² versus 13.3M per mm².

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5600M | NVIDIA Tesla M40 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 10,300 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 251 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 41.0M / mm² | 13.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1035 MHz | 948 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1265 MHz | 1112 MHz |

| Game Clock | 1190 MHz | N/A |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 144 | 192 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| FP32 Performance | 5.829 TFLOPS | 6.832 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1) | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 80.96 GPixel/s | 106.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 182.2 GTexel/s | 213.5 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 150 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 8-pin EPS |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 600 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| Length | N/A | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2020-07-06 | 2015-11-09 |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Tesla Kepler |

| Successor | N/A | Tesla Pascal |