AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE and NVIDIA Tesla M40 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, separated by nearly a decade of GPU architecture evolution. The data shows a decisive overall advantage for the AMD part, but the Tesla M40 retains specific strengths in memory capacity and raw compute width that matter for certain workloads. Benchmark results indicate the RX 7650 GRE delivers a 112.1% higher score in the Geekbench OpenCL test, with the AMD card scoring 83109 against the Tesla M40’s 39192. This head-to-head result is the only shared benchmark between the two, and it paints a clear picture of generational performance disparity.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, and the margin is emphatic. The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE scores 83109, while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 manages 39192. That translates to a 112.1% advantage for the AMD card — more than double the raw compute score. This is not a marginal victory; it is a complete overhaul of performance expectations. The RX 7650 GRE’s FP32 throughput of 22.08 TFLOPS dwarfs the Tesla M40’s 6.832 TFLOPS, a 3.2x gap in theoretical peak compute that manifests directly in the OpenCL result.

Context from the nearest rival lists reinforces the chasm. The RX 7650 GRE’s average benchmark score of 42723 places it just 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43223) and 1.3% behind the Quadro M6000 (43301). Meanwhile, the Tesla M40’s average score of 41897 sits 2.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (40870) but still trails the RX 7650 GRE by 1.9% in that same metric. The Geekbench OpenCL delta of 112.1% is far larger than any difference between adjacent rivals, indicating that the architectural leap between Maxwell 2.0 and RDNA 3.0 is not incremental — it is transformative.

The Tesla M40 does appear in the RX 7650 GRE’s rival list indirectly, but only through the Quadro M6000 variants, which share the GM200 chip. The M40’s own nearest rivals include the Tesla M40 24 GB (0.5% ahead) and the RTX 3080 Ti (1.7% behind), showing that the M40’s compute capability is still competitive with much newer cards in aggregate scoring. However, the OpenCL head-to-head leaves no ambiguity: the RX 7650 GRE wins the only direct benchmark contest, and it wins by a landslide.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different process nodes and microarchitectures. The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE uses the Navi 33 chip on TSMC’s 6 nm process, packing 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die. The NVIDIA Tesla M40 uses the GM200 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 8,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 601 mm² die. This is a 68% transistor count advantage for AMD in a die that is 66% smaller, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm² versus the M40’s 13.3M per mm² — a 4.9x density improvement.

Architecturally, the RX 7650 GRE is RDNA 3.0 (codename “Hotpink Bonefish”), while the Tesla M40 is Maxwell 2.0. The AMD card features 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Tesla M40 counters with 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but has no ray tracing cores. Raw shading unit count favors the M40 by 50%, yet the RX 7650 GRE still achieves far higher throughput due to clock speeds: 1720 MHz base and 2695 MHz boost for AMD versus 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost for NVIDIA. The RX 7650 GRE’s boost clock is 142% higher than the M40’s, which more than compensates for the fewer shading units.

Memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The RX 7650 GRE uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla M40 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, achieving 288.4 GB/s — a near-identical bandwidth figure. The M40’s wider bus and larger capacity are its key architectural advantages, but the RX 7650 GRE’s modern memory type delivers the same bandwidth from a quarter of the bus width. The AMD card also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the M40 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ completely: the RX 7650 GRE provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, while the Tesla M40 has no display outputs at all, being a compute-only accelerator.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE wins on virtually every compute metric that matters for modern workloads. Its FP32 performance of 22.08 TFLOPS is 3.2x the M40’s 6.832 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 172.5 GPixel/s versus 106.8 GPixel/s, a 61.5% advantage. Texture rate is 345.0 GTexel/s versus 213.5 GTexel/s, a 61.6% advantage. The RX 7650 GRE also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio of 22.08 TFLOPS, whereas the Tesla M40 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and has no listed FP16 capability. This makes the AMD card suitable for ray tracing, modern game engines, and AI-adjacent workloads where FP16 throughput is critical.

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 wins on memory capacity and board footprint for specific use cases. Its 12 GB of VRAM exceeds the RX 7650 GRE’s 8 GB by 50%, which matters for datasets that exceed 8 GB but fit within 12 GB. The M40 also has a wider 384-bit memory bus, which historically provides better latency characteristics under certain access patterns, even though raw bandwidth is nearly identical. The M40’s higher shading unit count (3072 vs 2048) gives it theoretical parallel execution width, but clock speed penalties negate this in practice. For legacy compute environments that require Maxwell-era CUDA compatibility or passive cooling in server chassis (the M40 is a dual-slot, 267 mm card with no display outputs), the Tesla M40 remains a viable option. The RX 7650 GRE is shorter at 204 mm and includes display outputs, making it a hybrid gaming/compute card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE is decisively ahead, with 22.08 TFLOPS FP32 versus the NVIDIA Tesla M40’s 6.832 TFLOPS. This is reflected in the Geekbench OpenCL score of 83109 for AMD versus 39192 for NVIDIA, a 112.1% difference.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 have any advantage in memory?

A: Yes, the Tesla M40 offers 12 GB of VRAM compared to the RX 7650 GRE’s 8 GB, a 50% capacity increase. However, memory bandwidth is essentially tied at 288.4 GB/s (M40) versus 288.0 GB/s (RX 7650 GRE), so the M40’s advantage is purely capacity, not speed.

Q: Can the Tesla M40 handle modern gaming APIs?

A: No. The Tesla M40 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but lacks the DirectX 12 Ultimate features of the RX 7650 GRE, which supports 12_2. The M40 also has no ray tracing cores, while the RX 7650 GRE has 32.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 7650 GRE has a TDP of 170 W and requires a 450 W power supply. The Tesla M40 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W power supply. The AMD card is more power-efficient despite delivering over 3x the FP32 throughput.

Q: Is the Tesla M40 still relevant in 2025?

A: The data shows it is end-of-life and was released in November 2015. Its average benchmark score of 41897 places it in the same percentile (83rd) as the RX 7650 GRE, but the AMD card is active and newer. The M40’s 12 GB memory and passive design may suit specific legacy compute tasks, but it loses the only direct benchmark comparison.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7650 GRE’s average score of 42723 is 1.2% behind the RTX 4070 SUPER and 1.3% behind the Quadro M6000. The Tesla M40’s average score of 41897 is 0.5% behind the Tesla M40 24 GB and 1.7% ahead of the RTX 3080 Ti, but 1.9% behind the RX 7650 GRE itself.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE | NVIDIA Tesla M40 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1720 MHz | 948 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2695 MHz | 1112 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR6 | 12 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 128 | 192 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 22.08 TFLOPS | 6.832 TFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 172.5 GPixel/s | 106.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 345.0 GTexel/s | 213.5 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 170 W | 250 W |

| Power Connector | 1x 8-pin | 8-pin EPS |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | None |

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

| Release Date | 2025-02-06 | 2015-11-09 |

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