AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT and the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, both in time and in intent. The RX 6950 XT is a late-stage RDNA 2 flagship designed for high-refresh gaming and modern API support, while the Tesla M40 24 GB is a Maxwell-era compute accelerator built for large-memory server workloads. The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap in favor of the AMD card, but the Tesla’s 24 GB frame buffer and dual-slot design give it a distinct identity. This analysis splits the two by workload, architecture, and specification, using only the database’s recorded measurements.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 205,998 against the Tesla M40’s 37,439, a 450.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card scores 165,212 against 45,975, a 259.4% lead. These are not narrow margins; they represent a generational chasm in raw compute and API efficiency. The RX 6950 XT also holds a full suite of other benchmarks, including PassMark G3D at 28,070, PassMark GPU Compute at 14,199, and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 4,235, none of which the Tesla M40 has recorded data for.

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB wins in exactly zero recorded comparisons. However, its strength lies outside the benchmark suite: the database lists 24 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, more than the RX 6950 XT’s 16 GB of GDDR6. For workloads that require fitting very large datasets in VRAM, such as certain inference or rendering tasks, the Tesla’s capacity is the only area where it can claim a practical advantage. The parity in physical length, both cards measure 267 mm or 10.5 inches, means neither has a clearance edge in chassis fit, but the Tesla’s dual-slot cooler is less intrusive than the RX 6950 XT’s triple-slot design.

In terms of percentile standing, the RX 6950 XT ranks in the 88th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Tesla M40 sits in the 83rd. That 5-point gap reflects the overall score distribution, not just the head-to-head results. The RX 6950 XT’s average benchmark score is 58,392, while the Tesla M40’s is 41,707. The nearest rivals for the AMD card are within 0.5% in either direction, specifically the NVIDIA P102-100 at 58,528 and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657, while the Tesla M40’s closest competitors include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 58, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 at 40,870, and the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE at 42,723. The RX 6950 XT is effectively at parity with its immediate rivals, while the Tesla M40 trails its nearest competitor by 2.4% in one case.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The RX 6950 XT uses the Navi 21 chip built on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Tesla M40 uses the GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The node difference explains much of the efficiency and clock divergence: the AMD chip packs 26,800 million transistors into a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.5 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip contains 8,000 million transistors on a larger 601 mm² die, for a density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. That is nearly a 4x density advantage for the newer process.

The RX 6950 XT carries 5,120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, 128 ROPs, and 80 ray tracing cores. The Tesla M40 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The AMD card also supports a broader API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Tesla’s DirectX 12 (12_1), while both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RDNA 2 architecture includes hardware ray tracing and variable rate shading features that Maxwell 2.0 lacks entirely. The Tesla’s lack of display outputs further confirms its role as a compute-only accelerator, while the RX 6950 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Clock behavior reinforces the architectural gap. The RX 6950 XT runs at a base clock of 1860 MHz and a boost of 2310 MHz, with a game clock of 2100 MHz. The Tesla M40 idles at a 948 MHz base and boosts to 1112 MHz. The combination of a denser process, newer ISA, and higher clocks results in the AMD card’s 23.65 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the Tesla’s 6.832 TFLOPS. The RX 6950 XT also lists FP16 performance at 47.31 TFLOPS (2:1 rate), while the Tesla M40 has no FP16 figure recorded. Memory technology differs as well: GDDR6 at 18 Gbps effective on the AMD card versus GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective on the NVIDIA card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two tests with recorded scores for both cards are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the RX 6950 XT scores 205,998 against the Tesla M40’s 37,439. The delta of 450.2% means the AMD card delivers more than five times the compute performance in that workload. This is the largest recorded margin between the two. In Vulkan, the RX 6950 XT scores 165,212 against 45,975, a 259.4% lead. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the Maxwell architecture’s support appears limited in comparison, despite the database listing Vulkan 1.4 for both cards.

The RX 6950 XT’s other benchmarks, while not mirrored by the Tesla M40, show its broader capability profile. PassMark DirectX 11 score is 300, DirectX 9 is 303, DirectX 10 is 164, DirectX 12 is 114, G2D is 1,063, G3D is 28,070, and GPU Compute is 14,199. Geekbench Metal adds 222,653. The Tesla M40 has no recorded scores for any of these tests, so no direct comparison is possible. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 4,235 further demonstrates the RX 6950 XT’s modern gaming orientation.

The average benchmark scores tell the same story from a different angle. The RX 6950 XT averages 58,392 across all recorded tests, while the Tesla M40 averages 41,707. The delta is roughly 40%, which is smaller than the head-to-head deltas because the averages include tests where the Tesla either performs relatively better or where the AMD card’s extreme scores are diluted. The nearest rival data for each card shows that the RX 6950 XT sits within 0.5% of the NVIDIA P102-100 and 0.5% of the AMD Radeon PRO V710, while the Tesla M40 is within 1.3% of the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti and 2% of the Radeon Pro 5300. The Tesla M40’s closest rival in the database is a second Tesla M40 at 41,897, a 0.5% difference, which suggests the recorded M40 score is consistent within its own family.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field where data exists. Process node: 7 nm for the RX 6950 XT, 28 nm for the Tesla M40. Transistors: 26,800 million versus 8,000 million. Die size: 520 mm² versus 601 mm², meaning the Tesla’s die is physically larger despite holding far fewer transistors. Memory size: 16 GB GDDR6 versus 24 GB GDDR5. Memory bus: 256 bit versus 384 bit. Memory bandwidth: 576.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s. The AMD card’s narrower bus is compensated by much faster GDDR6, resulting in exactly double the bandwidth.

Shading units: 5,120 versus 3,072. TMUs: 320 versus 192. ROPs: 128 versus 96. Ray tracing cores: 80 on the AMD card, none on the NVIDIA card. Pixel rate: 295.7 GPixel/s versus 106.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 739.2 GTexel/s versus 213.5 GTexel/s. FP32: 23.65 TFLOPS versus 6.832 TFLOPS. FP16: 47.31 TFLOPS on the AMD card, not listed for the NVIDIA card. TDP: 335 W versus 250 W. The RX 6950 XT consumes more power but delivers far more performance per watt in raw throughput terms, although the database does not list efficiency metrics directly.

Slot width: triple-slot for the RX 6950 XT, dual-slot for the Tesla M40. Power connectors: 2x 8-pin for AMD, 8-pin EPS for NVIDIA. Suggested PSU: 700 W versus 600 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 2x DisplayPort 1.4a on the AMD card, no outputs on the Tesla. Dimensions: both are 267 mm in length, but the AMD card is 120 mm high and 50 mm wide, while the Tesla’s height and width are not listed. Release dates: the RX 6950 XT launched in 2022, the Tesla M40 in 2015. The AMD card’s predecessor is Navi, successor Navi III, while the Tesla’s predecessor is Tesla Kepler, successor Tesla Pascal.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT, at 23.65 TFLOPS, versus the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB at 6.832 TFLOPS, a 246% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 24 GB support ray tracing cores, and what about the RX 6950 XT?

A: The Tesla M40 24 GB has no ray tracing cores listed, while the RX 6950 XT has 80 ray tracing cores. The RX 6950 XT also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Tesla M40 24 GB supports DirectX 12 (12_1) only.

Q: How much VRAM does each card have, and what memory type?

A: The RX 6950 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Tesla M40 24 GB has 24 GB of GDDR5 memory. The Tesla’s memory bus is wider at 384 bit, but the RX 6950 XT’s bandwidth is higher at 576.0 GB/s.

Q: When was each card released, and what is the production status?

**A: The RX 6950 XT was released in 2022 and is end-of-life, while the Tesla M40 24 GB was released in 2015 and is end-of-life. The Tesla M40 24 GB's predecessor is Tesla Kepler and successor is Tesla Pascal, and the RX 6950 XT's predecessor is Navi and successor is Navi III.

Q: What are the recorded OpenCL and Vulkan scores for both cards?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6950 XT scores 205,998 and the Tesla M40 24 GB scores 37,439. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6950 XT scores 165,212 and the Tesla M40 24 GB scores 45,975. The RX 6950 XT wins both by 450.2% and 259.4%, respectively.

Q: Do both cards have the same physical length, and what about their slot widths?

A: Both cards measure 267 mm in length. The RX 6950 XT is triple-slot and the Tesla M40 24 GB is dual-slot. The RX 6950 XT requires a 700 W suggested PSU, whereas the Tesla M40 24 GB requires a 600 W suggested PSU. The Tesla M40 24 GB has no display outputs, while the RX 6950 XT has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 2x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 6950 XT uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the Tesla M40 24 GB uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 6950 XT has a 267 mm length, 120 mm height, and 50 mm width, while the Tesla M40 24 GB only lists a length of 267 mm.