AMD Radeon RX 5600M vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 5600M vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M and NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, separated by nearly five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear overall winner in average benchmark score — the RX 5600M posts 46,601 versus the M40’s 41,707 — but the M40’s massive 24 GB frame buffer and compute-oriented design suggest the story is not one-dimensional. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the AMD part wins both, yet the margin in one is enormous while the other is razor-thin, hinting at workloads where each card’s strengths shine.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result comes from Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 5600M scores 59,589 against the Tesla M40’s 37,439. That is a 59.2% advantage for AMD — a staggering gap that underscores the generational leap in compute efficiency. The M40, built on the 28 nm Maxwell architecture, simply cannot keep pace with the RDNA 1.0 design’s raw throughput per clock. The RX 5600M’s FP32 rating of 5.829 TFLOPS is lower than the M40’s 6.832 TFLOPS, yet the AMD card still wins decisively in this OpenCL workload, suggesting that driver optimization and architecture-level scheduling play a larger role than raw FLOP counts in this particular test.

The second shared benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, tells a different story. Here the RX 5600M wins again, but only by 6.2%, with scores of 48,843 versus 45,975. This narrower margin indicates that when both cards are pushed through a modern graphics API, the M40’s Maxwell architecture — despite its age — holds its ground far better than the OpenCL result would imply. The M40’s higher pixel rate (106.8 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.5 GTexel/s) compared to the RX 5600M’s 80.96 GPixel/s and 182.2 GTexel/s may explain why the gap closes: rasterization-heavy workloads leverage these fixed-function units more effectively.

Interestingly, the RX 5600M has two additional benchmarks recorded — 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1,320) and Geekbench Metal (76,653) — while the M40 has no results for either. This absence of data is itself informative: the M40 was never designed for gaming or Metal-based ecosystems, and its benchmark profile reflects a compute-server focus. The head-to-head tally shows AMD winning 2-0, but the Vulkan result suggests that a broader test suite might reveal scenarios where the M40’s 24 GB memory and higher shading unit count (3,072 versus 2,304) could shift the balance.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5600M dominates in OpenCL compute, and its 59.2% lead there is the single largest differentiator in the entire comparison. For workloads that rely on general-purpose GPU compute through OpenCL — think scientific simulation, financial modeling, or video encoding — the data strongly favors the AMD part. Its RDNA 1.0 architecture, with support for FP16 at 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), gives it a flexibility that the M40 lacks entirely, as the Tesla card has no recorded FP16 capability. The RX 5600M also wins in Vulkan, though narrowly, making it the better choice for cross-platform graphics workloads that use that API.

The Tesla M40 24 GB, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has clear advantages in other areas. Its 24 GB of GDDR5 memory is four times the RX 5600M’s 6 GB, and while bandwidth is nearly identical (288.4 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s), the sheer capacity makes it suitable for large dataset processing — neural network training batches, big data analytics, or high-resolution texture sets that exceed 6 GB. The M40 also wins on raw throughput metrics: higher FP32 (6.832 TFLOPS), higher pixel rate, and higher texture rate. In situations where memory capacity is the bottleneck, the M40 is the only viable option between the two.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The RX 5600M sits at the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the M40 is at the 83rd — a close overall standing. But the M40’s nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (1.3% delta) and Radeon RX 7650 GRE (-2.4% delta), indicating it competes with much newer gaming hardware in average score. The RX 5600M’s nearest rivals — Intel Arc A530M, Radeon RX 6550M, RTX A2000 — are all mobile or workstation parts, suggesting its performance class is more portable-focused.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600M, with an average score of 46,601 compared to the NVIDIA Tesla M40’s 41,707 — a difference of roughly 11.7% in AMD’s favor.

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

A: The RX 5600M scores 59,589 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 59.2% higher than the Tesla M40’s 37,439. This is the largest performance gap in any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 have any benchmark where it beats the RX 5600M?

A: No. Across the two shared benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RX 5600M wins both. The M40 does not have recorded results for 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 or Geekbench Metal.

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

A: The Tesla M40 has 24 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6. Despite the capacity gap, bandwidth is nearly identical: 288.4 GB/s for the M40 and 288.0 GB/s for the RX 5600M.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 5600M, at 41.0 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to the Tesla M40’s 13.3 million. This reflects the 7 nm process node of the AMD card versus the 28 nm node of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life. The RX 5600M was released on 2020-07-06, while the Tesla M40 dates back to 2015-11-09.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is memory capacity: the Tesla M40 offers 24 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the RX 5600M has 6 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. Bandwidth is nearly a tie (288.4 GB/s vs 288.0 GB/s), but the M40’s wider bus and slower memory clock (1502 MHz vs 1500 MHz base) achieve this with older technology. The M40 uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective, while the RX 5600M uses GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective — double the data rate per pin.

Clock speeds differ markedly. The RX 5600M has a base clock of 1035 MHz, a boost of 1265 MHz, and a game clock of 1190 MHz. The Tesla M40 is slower in clocks, with a 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost, and no game clock listed. The RX 5600M also has a higher transistor count (10,300 million versus 8,000 million) despite a much smaller die (251 mm² versus 601 mm²), reflecting the density advantage of 7 nm over 28 nm.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. The RX 5600M is an IGP (integrated GPU) with no power connectors and a 150 W TDP, while the M40 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) with an 8-pin EPS connector and a 250 W TDP, requiring a 600 W power supply. The bus interface differs too: PCIe 4.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent on the RX 5600M, while the M40 has no outputs at all.

Architecture Differences

The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip based on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Tesla M40 uses the GM200 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The RX 5600M supports FP16 computation at 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Tesla M40 has no listed FP16 capability — a significant omission for AI or HPC workloads that exploit mixed-precision. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level compatibility is identical. However, the RX 5600M’s RDNA 1.0 architecture is designed for efficiency and gaming, whereas the M40’s Maxwell 2.0 is a compute-focused design with no display outputs and a server-oriented feature set.

The M40 is part of the Tesla Maxwell generation, with a predecessor of Tesla Kepler and a successor of Tesla Pascal. The RX 5600M belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 5000M) generation, with a predecessor of Polaris Mobile. The RX 5600M’s process advantage — 7 nm versus 28 nm — translates to a transistor density of 41.0M per mm² versus 13.3M per mm², which explains how AMD packs more transistors into less than half the die area.

The Verdict

The data makes a compelling case for the AMD Radeon RX 5600M as the overall winner in compute and modern graphics workloads. Its 59.2% OpenCL lead and 6.2% Vulkan advantage are backed by a significantly higher average benchmark score (46,601 vs 41,707) and a better percentile ranking (85th vs 83rd). For anyone running OpenCL-heavy applications, Vulkan-based software, or needing a mobile-friendly IGP solution with FP16 support, the RX 5600M is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB, however, is not without merit. Its 24 GB memory capacity is unmatched by the RX 5600M’s 6 GB, making it the only option for datasets that exceed that limit. Its higher FP32 throughput (6.832 TFLOPS), pixel rate, and texture rate also give it raw rasterization muscle that the AMD card cannot match. For server deployments where memory capacity is paramount, display output is unnecessary, and power consumption (250 W) is acceptable, the M40 remains a viable — if aging — workhorse.

The verdict hinges on workload. If the task involves large models, big batches, or memory-hungry inference, the Tesla M40’s 24 GB framebuffer is the decisive factor. If the task involves modern API efficiency, portability, or mixed-precision compute, the RX 5600M’s architectural lead is insurmountable. The data does not support a universal winner — it supports two specialized tools for different jobs.