AMD Radeon RX 7900M vs NVIDIA Tesla P40 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a dominant performance gap between the AMD Radeon RX 7900M and the NVIDIA Tesla P40 in the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7900M scores 129,499 against the Tesla P40’s 62,017, a delta of 108.8% in favor of the AMD part. That is more than double the raw compute score, and it reflects the sheer difference in shading throughput between the two architectures.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RX 7900M posts 158,760 points, while the Tesla P40 manages 68,172, giving the AMD card a 132.9% advantage. Vulkan tends to scale with raw geometry and shader work, and the RX 7900M’s newer RDNA 3.0 design pulls far ahead here. The Tesla P40, built on Pascal from 2016, simply cannot match the per-clock efficiency or the massive FP32 throughput of the Navi 31 chip.

Looking at average benchmark scores across the database, the RX 7900M lands at 97,487, which places it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The Tesla P40 sits at 65,095, good for the 89th percentile. The delta in average scores is roughly 49.8% in favor of the AMD card, which aligns with the head-to-head results. The RX 7900M’s nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131, delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (101,872, delta -4.3%), the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92,466, delta 5.4%), and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671, delta 6.3%). It is competitive with those workstation-class cards, slightly behind the Quadro RTX 6000 but ahead of the rest.

The Tesla P40’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64,212, delta 1.4%), the AMD Radeon VII (66,004, delta -1.4%), the NVIDIA CMP 30HX (63,842, delta 2%), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63,830, delta 2%). The Tesla P40 is essentially on par with those cards, within a couple of percentage points in either direction. That places it in a much older performance tier, roughly equivalent to late-2017 flagship gaming cards, not competing with modern high-end parts.

In the two direct comparisons, the RX 7900M wins both. There is no benchmark in the shared set where the Tesla P40 comes out ahead. The margin is consistent and large, which makes the performance hierarchy clear from the data alone.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7900M wins every shared workload in the database. Its OpenCL score of 129,499 versus 62,017 means it handles general-purpose compute, the kind used in rendering, simulation, and some machine learning inference, at roughly twice the speed. The Vulkan result, 158,760 versus 68,172, shows a similar advantage in graphics-heavy tasks that use modern APIs. If the workload is Vulkan-based, such as DXVK translation layers or newer game engines, the RX 7900M is the clear pick.

The Tesla P40 does not win any benchmark in the shared set. Its strengths lie elsewhere, specifically in its memory capacity and its intended use case. It has 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, which gives it 347.1 GB/s of bandwidth. That is less than the RX 7900M’s 576.0 GB/s, but the 24 GB capacity is 8 GB more than the AMD card’s 16 GB. For workloads that require holding very large datasets in VRAM, such as certain inference models or large rendering scenes, the Tesla P40 could be more practical despite its lower compute throughput. However, the recorded benchmarks do not test memory capacity directly, so this is a qualitative observation from the specification data.

The RX 7900M also has a much higher FP16 rate at 77.05 TFLOPS (2:1) versus the Tesla P40’s 183.7 GFLOPS (1:64). That makes the AMD card dramatically better at mixed-precision workloads, which are common in AI inference and some scientific computing. The Tesla P40’s FP16 performance is effectively negligible by comparison, a legacy of its Pascal design that treated FP16 as a minor feature. The RX 7900M’s FP32 rate of 38.52 TFLOPS versus 11.76 TFLOPS for the Tesla P40 further cements its lead in standard single-precision compute.

For gaming or real-time graphics, the RX 7900M is the only choice with DirectX 12 Ultimate support and ray tracing acceleration (72 RT cores). The Tesla P40 lacks RT cores entirely and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1), not the Ultimate feature set. The AMD card also has 4,608 shading units versus 3,840 for the NVIDIA part, and 288 TMUs versus 240, so it wins on raw pixel and texture throughput as well: 401.3 GPixel/s versus 147.0 GPixel/s, and 601.9 GTexel/s versus 367.4 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: for any workload covered by the shared benchmarks, the AMD Radeon RX 7900M is the superior product. It wins both head-to-head tests by margins of 108.8% and 132.9%, has a higher average benchmark score by roughly 50%, and sits in a higher percentile of all GPUs (94th versus 89th). If you are choosing between these two strictly on compute performance, the RX 7900M is the pick without hesitation.

The Tesla P40 has one practical advantage: 24 GB of VRAM versus 16 GB. That matters for specific memory-bound tasks, but the database does not include a benchmark that isolates memory capacity. The RX 7900M also has higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s versus 347.1 GB/s), so it is not trading away speed for capacity in a meaningful way. The Tesla P40 is also an end-of-life product with no display outputs, while the RX 7900M is active and supports portable-device-dependent outputs.

Who should pick the Tesla P40? Only a user who absolutely needs more than 16 GB of VRAM in a single card and cannot use a newer alternative. Who should pick the RX 7900M? Anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, anyone who wants modern API support, ray tracing, or faster compute. The benchmark data is unambiguous: the RX 7900M is over twice as fast in Vulkan and over twice as fast in OpenCL. There is no scenario in the recorded results where the Tesla P40 wins.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7900M has an average score of 97,487, compared to the NVIDIA Tesla P40’s 65,095. That puts the RX 7900M in the 94th percentile of all GPUs and the Tesla P40 in the 89th percentile.

Q: How does the RX 7900M compare to its nearest rival, the Quadro RTX 6000?

A: The RX 7900M is 4.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, which has an average score of 101,872. It is ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro VII by 0.4%, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 by 5.4%, and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 by 6.3%.

Q: Does the Tesla P40 have any benchmark win over the RX 7900M?

A: No. In the two shared tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7900M wins both. The Tesla P40 does not record a single victory in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Tesla P40 has 24 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the RX 7900M has 16 GB of GDDR6. The RX 7900M has higher bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s versus 347.1 GB/s for the Tesla P40.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7900M has 72 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA Tesla P40 has no RT cores and supports only DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference?

A: The RX 7900M delivers 77.05 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the Tesla P40 delivers 183.7 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64 ratio). The AMD card is significantly faster in mixed-precision workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different design eras. The AMD Radeon RX 7900M uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 5 nm process. It packs 57,700 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 109.1 million per mm². The NVIDIA Tesla P40 uses the GP102 chip with Pascal architecture, built on TSMC’s 16 nm process. It has 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, a density of 25.1 million per mm². The RX 7900M has nearly five times the transistor count on a slightly larger die, which explains the massive performance gap.

The RX 7900M is a chiplet-style design with a 256-bit memory bus, while the Tesla P40 uses a monolithic 384-bit bus. The AMD card has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 192 ROPs, plus 72 dedicated RT cores. The Tesla P40 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with no RT cores and no tensor cores. The RX 7900M’s pixel rate is 401.3 GPixel/s versus 147.0 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 601.9 GTexel/s versus 367.4 GTexel/s.

Memory technology also differs: the RX 7900M uses GDDR6 at 18 Gbps effective, while the Tesla P40 uses GDDR5 at 7.2 Gbps effective. The bus width difference (256-bit versus 384-bit) partially compensates, but the AMD card still ends up with 576.0 GB/s versus 347.1 GB/s. The RX 7900M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla P40 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but lacks the Ultimate feature set.

The RX 7900M is an integrated mobile part with no power connectors and a slot width of IGP. The Tesla P40 is a dual-slot card with an 8-pin EPS power connector and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The Tesla P40 has no display outputs, while the RX 7900M’s outputs are portable-device dependent. The AMD card has a TDP of 180 W, the Tesla P40 has a TDP of 250 W. The RX 7900M is also much newer, released in October 2023, versus the Tesla P40’s September 2016 release.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two cards are as follows:

• Process node: 5 nm (RX 7900M) versus 16 nm (Tesla P40)
• Transistors: 57,700 million versus 11,800 million
• Die size: 529 mm² versus 471 mm²
• Transistor density: 109.1M / mm² versus 25.1M / mm²
• Base clock: 1825 MHz versus 1303 MHz
• Boost clock: 2090 MHz versus 1531 MHz
• Memory clock: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1808 MHz (7.2 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 16 GB versus 24 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 384 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 576.0 GB/s versus 347.1 GB/s
• Shading units: 4608 versus 3840
• TMUs: 288 versus 240
• ROPs: 192 versus 96
• RT cores: 72 versus none
• Pixel rate: 401.3 GPixel/s versus 147.0 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 601.9 GTexel/s versus 367.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 38.52 TFLOPS versus 11.76 TFLOPS
• FP16: 77.05 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 183.7 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: 180 W versus 250 W
• Slot width: IGP versus dual-slot
• Power connectors: none versus 8-pin EPS
• Suggested PSU: none versus 600 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: portable-device dependent versus no outputs
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1)
• Production status: active versus end-of-life
• Release date: 2023-10-18 versus 2016-09-12
• Predecessor: Polaris Mobile versus Tesla Maxwell
• Successor: none versus Tesla Volta
• Launch MSRP: none versus 5,699 USD