AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH vs NVIDIA Tesla M60 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla M60 and AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, yet their benchmark scores place them surprisingly close in overall performance. The data shows the Tesla M60 takes both available head-to-head wins, but the margins tell a more nuanced story than a simple sweep. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Tesla M60 scores 29,506 against 27,125 for the Vega M GH, an 8.8% advantage. The Vulkan gap shrinks dramatically: 31,473 versus 31,268, a mere 0.7% difference. These results indicate that while the Tesla M60 holds a consistent edge, the Vega M GH is highly competitive in specific workloads, making the choice heavily dependent on the intended use case.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla M60 dominates in raw compute throughput, particularly in OpenCL workloads. Its 4.825 TFLOPS FP32 performance, coupled with 2048 shading units, gives it a substantial theoretical advantage over the Vega M GH’s 3.656 TFLOPS and 1536 shading units. This translates directly into the 8.8% OpenCL lead, a scenario where the Tesla M60’s higher shader count and texture rate of 150.8 GTexel/s versus 114.2 GTexel/s for the AMD part prove decisive. The Tesla M60 also exhibits superior memory bandwidth in practical terms, despite having a lower peak number—its 160.4 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 bus is more than adequate for its compute tasks, whereas the Vega M GH relies on a much wider 1024-bit HBM2 interface to achieve 204.8 GB/s.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH wins in efficiency and integration scenarios. Its 100 W TDP is one-third of the Tesla M60’s 300 W, and it is designed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no separate power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices. The Vega M GH also offers 1:1 FP16 performance at 3.656 TFLOPS, a feature the Tesla M60 lacks entirely—the NVIDIA part has no listed FP16 capability. This makes the AMD chip more versatile for workloads that can leverage half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or image processing pipelines. The Vulkan benchmark, where the Vega M GH trails by only 0.7%, suggests that its GCN 4.0 architecture handles modern API overhead well, closing the gap that OpenCL exposes.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different process nodes and foundries. The Tesla M60 uses NVIDIA’s GM204 chip on a 28 nm TSMC process, packing 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die. The Vega M GH uses AMD’s Polaris 22 chip on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, with 5,000 million transistors in a much smaller 208 mm² die. This explains the transistor density difference: 13.1M per mm² for the Tesla M60 versus 24.0M per mm² for the Vega M GH. The smaller, denser AMD chip achieves its performance with fewer resources, highlighting the generational process advantage.

Architecturally, the Tesla M60 is built on Maxwell 2.0, which supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vega M GH uses GCN 4.0, supporting DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The DirectX feature level difference (12_1 vs 12_0) gives the Tesla M60 a slight edge in certain modern game features, though both are end-of-life products. Clock speeds differ significantly: the Tesla M60 has a base clock of 557 MHz and boost of 1178 MHz, while the Vega M GH starts at 1063 MHz and boosts to 1190 MHz. The AMD part runs much faster at base, but the NVIDIA chip has a higher boost ceiling relative to its base, suggesting more aggressive power scaling.

Memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Tesla M60 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, while the Vega M GH uses 4 GB of HBM2 with a 1024-bit bus. The AMD part’s bandwidth advantage (204.8 GB/s vs 160.4 GB/s) is offset by half the capacity, which can be limiting for large datasets. The Tesla M60’s memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), whereas the Vega M GH runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective), but the wider bus compensates. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional shader-based compute.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA Tesla M60 is the choice for users prioritizing raw compute performance and OpenCL-heavy workloads. Its 8.8% OpenCL lead and 0.7% Vulkan lead are backed by a 32% advantage in FP32 throughput (4.825 vs 3.656 TFLOPS) and a 32% higher texture rate (150.8 vs 114.2 GTexel/s). The Tesla M60 also offers double the memory capacity (8 GB vs 4 GB), which is critical for larger datasets. However, this comes at a cost in power draw—300 W versus 100 W—and physical size, as it requires a dual-slot form factor and an 8-pin power connector, with a suggested 700 W PSU.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is the better fit for integrated or portable systems where power efficiency and compactness are paramount. Its 100 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of external power connectors make it deployable in laptops or small-form-factor devices. The 1:1 FP16 support is a unique advantage over the Tesla M60, opening up half-precision compute paths. In Vulkan, the Vega M GH is effectively tied with the Tesla M60, trailing by less than 1%, so for Vulkan-based applications, the efficiency benefits of the AMD part can be realized without significant performance loss.

Neither card is a clear winner across all criteria. The Tesla M60 wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, but the Vega M GH counters with superior efficiency, newer process technology, and FP16 capability. The percentile rankings are nearly identical—75th for the Tesla M60 versus 74th for the Vega M GH—confirming that they sit in the same performance tier overall. The choice comes down to whether the workload prioritizes compute density (Tesla M60) or power efficiency and integration (Vega M GH).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M60, with 4.825 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.656 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, a 32% advantage.

Q: How do they compare in OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Tesla M60 scores 29,506 versus 27,125 for the Vega M GH, an 8.8% lead. In Vulkan, the Tesla M60 scores 31,473 versus 31,268, a 0.7% lead.

Q: Does the AMD card support FP16 compute?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH offers 3.656 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The NVIDIA Tesla M60 has no listed FP16 capability.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each?

A: The Tesla M60 has 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega M GH has 4 GB HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH has a 100 W TDP, compared to 300 W for the NVIDIA Tesla M60. The AMD card is an IGP with no power connectors, while the Tesla M60 requires a dual-slot design and 1x 8-pin connector.

Q: What API levels do they support?

A: The Tesla M60 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vega M GH supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test provides the clearest separation between the two GPUs. The Tesla M60 scores 29,506 against 27,125 for the Vega M GH, a delta of 8.8%. This aligns with the theoretical compute gap: the Tesla M60’s 2048 shading units and 4.825 TFLOPS FP32 outpace the Vega M GH’s 1536 shading units and 3.656 TFLOPS. The texture rate difference is also stark—150.8 GTexel/s versus 114.2 GTexel/s—indicating that the Tesla M60 handles texture-heavy compute workloads more efficiently. The pixel rates are nearly identical (75.39 vs 76.16 GPixel/s), so rasterization throughput is not the differentiator here.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a different story. The Tesla M60 wins again, but by only 0.7%: 31,473 versus 31,268. This narrow margin suggests that the Vega M GH’s GCN 4.0 architecture is better optimized for Vulkan’s low-overhead API, effectively neutralizing the Tesla M60’s raw compute advantage. The Vega M GH’s higher base clock (1063 MHz vs 557 MHz) likely contributes to this parity, as Vulkan workloads can leverage sustained clock speeds rather than burst boost behavior. The Tesla M60’s boost clock of 1178 MHz is only slightly higher than the Vega M GH’s 1190 MHz, so the NVIDIA part’s advantage must come from its larger shader count and memory capacity.

In terms of overall average benchmark score, the Tesla M60 achieves 30,490 versus 29,197 for the Vega M GH, a 4.4% difference. The Tesla M60’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA CMP 70HX (30,476, 0% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 6700 (30,433, 0.2% delta), placing it in a performance tier with modern mid-range GPUs. The Vega M GH’s nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W8000 (29,211, 0% delta) and Intel Arc A370M (29,175, 0.1% delta), showing it competes with lower-tier discrete mobile GPUs. Despite the architectural age difference, both cards remain relevant in their respective niches.

Specification Differences

The core specification split reveals the fundamental design philosophies. The Tesla M60 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Vega M GH uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. This leads to a die size difference: 398 mm² for the Tesla M60 versus 208 mm² for the Vega M GH. Transistor counts are close (5,200 million vs 5,000 million), but the density is nearly double on the AMD chip (24.0M/mm² vs 13.1M/mm²). The Tesla M60 has more shading units (2048 vs 1536) and TMUs (128 vs 96), but both have 64 ROPs.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Tesla M60’s base clock is 557 MHz with a boost of 1178 MHz, while the Vega M GH runs at 1063 MHz base and 1190 MHz boost. The AMD part has a much higher floor, but the NVIDIA part’s boost multiplier (2.1x over base) is more aggressive. Memory configurations are entirely different: 8 GB GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) with a 256-bit bus versus 4 GB HBM2 at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) with a 1024-bit bus. Bandwidth favors the AMD part (204.8 GB/s vs 160.4 GB/s), but capacity favors NVIDIA.

Power and form factor are the most striking contrasts. The Tesla M60 draws 300 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, 1x 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 700 W PSU. The Vega M GH draws 100 W, is an IGP with no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. The Tesla M60 has no display outputs, while the Vega M GH’s outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." API support differs in DirectX version (12_1 vs 12_0) and Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.3). The Tesla M60 is a PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 267 mm, while the Vega M GH uses an IGP bus interface with no listed dimensions. Release dates are 2015 for the Tesla M60 and 2018 for the Vega M GH, with both being end-of-life products.