AMD Radeon RX 6550M vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 6550M vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear, consistent edge for the AMD Radeon RX 6550M across both tested workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6550M scores 42,536 against the Tesla M40's 37,439, a decisive 13.6% lead. The Vulkan results tell a similar story: the AMD card posts 50,867 versus the Tesla's 45,975, translating to a 10.6% advantage. This is not a narrow margin—it is a repeatable performance gap that favors the newer architecture in every measured scenario. The RX 6550M wins both head-to-head comparisons, giving it a 2-0 record in this matchup.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the RX 6550M's average score of 46,702 places it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla M40's 41,707 average lands in the 83rd percentile. That two-point percentile difference understates the actual performance delta in raw numbers. The RX 6550M's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A530M (0.2% slower), AMD Radeon RX 5600M (0.2% slower), and NVIDIA RTX A2000 (1.4% behind), which shows it is tightly clustered with modern mid-range parts. The Tesla M40, by contrast, sits near the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (1.3% faster) and AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (2% behind), but it also trails the Radeon RX 7650 GRE by 2.4%. Notably, the Tesla M40's own closest rival in the database is another Tesla M40 variant, which is 0.5% slower—a sign that this is an aging part whose performance has plateaued relative to current offerings.

The Vulkan gap is particularly telling. The RX 6550M's 50,867 Vulkan score versus 42,536 in OpenCL shows a 19.6% improvement when using the modern API. The Tesla M40 improves from 37,439 to 45,975 in Vulkan, a 22.8% jump, but it still cannot close the gap to the AMD part. This suggests that while the Maxwell architecture responds well to Vulkan's lower-overhead design, the fundamental compute advantage of the RDNA 2.0 chip remains insurmountable.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational and profound. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a compact 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Tesla M40 relies on the GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using a much older 28 nm process. It contains 8,000 million transistors spread across a massive 601 mm² die, with a density of just 13.3 million per square millimeter. The process shrink alone explains much of the performance difference—the AMD chip crams nearly four times the transistor density into a fraction of the silicon area.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The RX 6550M offers 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla M40 provides 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, achieving 288.4 GB/s. The Tesla has six times the memory capacity and double the bandwidth, which matters for large datasets. However, the RX 6550M's memory clocks at 18 Gbps effective versus the Tesla's 6 Gbps, reflecting the newer memory technology. The RX 6550M's smaller bus width is compensated by faster memory, but the Tesla's sheer capacity advantage remains its strongest technical asset.

Compute resources tell a nuanced story. The Tesla M40 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, while the RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having three times the shader count, the Tesla's raw FP32 throughput of 6.832 TFLOPS barely edges the RX 6550M's 5.816 TFLOPS. The AMD card's higher clocks—2,840 MHz boost versus 1,112 MHz—partially compensate for fewer cores. The RX 6550M also features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores, which the Tesla completely lacks. Pixel and texture rates are close: the Tesla posts 106.8 GPixel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s, while the RX 6550M achieves 90.88 GPixel/s and 181.8 GTexel/s. The Tesla's wider bus and more ROPs give it a slight edge in these rasterization metrics, but the AMD part counters with FP16 support at 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature absent from the Tesla.

Power and interface differences are stark. The RX 6550M draws 80 W TDP with no power connectors, designed as an integrated graphics processor for mobile platforms. The Tesla M40 consumes 250 W, requires an 8-pin EPS connector, and needs a 600 W suggested power supply. The Tesla is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) with no display outputs, while the RX 6550M is an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs. The RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the Tesla uses PCIe 3.0 x16. API support also differs: the RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) but also supports Vulkan 1.4. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both.

The Verdict

The data dictates a straightforward conclusion: choose the AMD Radeon RX 6550M for any workload where raw compute performance on modern APIs matters. It wins both benchmark tests by double-digit margins, offers ray tracing capability, and does so at a fraction of the power draw. The Tesla M40 24 GB only makes sense if you specifically need 24 GB of VRAM and can tolerate its age, power consumption, and lack of modern features. The RX 6550M's 13.6% OpenCL and 10.6% Vulkan leads are not trivial—they represent real, measurable performance advantages in compute-heavy tasks. Given that the RX 6550M is an active product while the Tesla is end-of-life, the practical recommendation is clear for most users. The Tesla's 24 GB capacity is its only compelling argument, and that is a niche requirement.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6550M | NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 50.5M / mm² | 13.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 948 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2840 MHz | 1112 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2560 MHz | N/A |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 64 | 192 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 16 | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 90.88 GPixel/s | 106.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 181.8 GTexel/s | 213.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.816 TFLOPS | 6.832 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1) | N/A |

| TDP | 80 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 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2015-11-09 |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Tesla Kepler |

| Successor | N/A | Tesla Pascal |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB leads in FP32 performance at 6.832 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS. The Tesla's advantage comes from its 3,072 shading units versus the AMD's 1,024, though the RX 6550M counters with FP16 support at 11.63 TFLOPS, which the Tesla lacks entirely.

Q: How do the two compare in benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M wins both tests. It scores 42,536 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 37,439 for the Tesla M40 (13.6% ahead), and 50,867 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 45,975 (10.6% ahead). The RX 6550M's average benchmark score is 46,702, compared to the Tesla's 41,707.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Tesla M40 24 GB has 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s. The Tesla offers six times the capacity and double the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M draws only 80 W TDP with no power connectors and is designed as an integrated GPU. The Tesla M40 consumes 250 W, requires an 8-pin EPS power connector, and needs a 600 W suggested power supply.

Q: Which architecture supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 6550M supports ray tracing, featuring 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Tesla M40 has no ray tracing cores at all, as it is based on the older Maxwell 2.0 architecture.

Q: How do their production statuses differ?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is an active product released on 2023-01-03, while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 is end-of-life, released on 2015-11-09. The Tesla's predecessor is Tesla Kepler and its successor is Tesla Pascal; the RX 6550M's predecessor is Polaris Mobile and it has no successor listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M wins in every benchmark category measured. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 42,536 and Vulkan score of 50,867 both exceed the Tesla M40's corresponding results of 37,439 and 45,975. The RX 6550M also wins on efficiency, drawing 80 W versus the Tesla's 250 W, and it supports modern features like ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate. This makes it the clear choice for current-generation gaming workloads, compute tasks that benefit from Vulkan, and any mobile or power-constrained deployment.

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 24 GB of VRAM dwarfs the RX 6550M's 4 GB, and its 288.4 GB/s bandwidth is exactly double the AMD card's 144.0 GB/s. It also has a slight edge in pixel rate (106.8 GPixel/s vs 90.88 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.5 GTexel/s vs 181.8 GTexel/s), plus higher FP32 throughput at 6.832 TFLOPS. This makes the Tesla preferable for workloads that require loading very large datasets into VRAM, such as certain scientific computing or machine learning inference scenarios where the 24 GB capacity is non-negotiable. The Tesla also has more shading units (3,072 vs 1,024) and ROPs (96 vs 32), which could benefit specific rasterization-heavy tasks despite the older architecture. Its dual-slot form factor and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface are more traditional for server integration, though it has no display outputs. For any user who needs to compute on a GPU with substantial memory without concern for power efficiency or modern API features, the Tesla M40 remains viable—but the benchmark data shows it is slower in practice for general compute, and its end-of-life status makes it a legacy option.