Intel Arc A550M vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

The Intel Arc A550M and NVIDIA Tesla M40 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, yet the benchmark data shows a clear overall winner. The Arc A550M leads in both recorded tests, with a substantial 27.3% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and an 11.2% lead in Vulkan. However, the Tesla M40 counters with a larger memory pool, higher bandwidth, and a fundamentally different design philosophy aimed at compute workloads rather than gaming or consumer graphics. The data shows that while the Arc A550M delivers modern architecture efficiency and superior raw scores, the Tesla M40's 12 GB frame buffer and 384-bit bus make it a specialized tool for specific tasks. Neither card is currently in production, but their benchmark profiles reveal distinct strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A550M scores 49,737 on average, placing it in the 86th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Tesla M40 scores 41,897 on average, placing it in the 83rd percentile. This represents a roughly 18.7% gap in favor of the Intel part.

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute throughput?

A: The Arc A550M delivers 8.397 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Tesla M40 provides 6.832 TFLOPS. The Intel card also offers 16.79 TFLOPS of FP16 via a 2:1 ratio, whereas the Tesla M40 has no listed FP16 capability.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Arc A550M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla M40 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla M40 has both more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The Arc A550M scores 49,580 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the Tesla M40's 44,602 by 11.2%. This is a narrower margin than the OpenCL test but still a decisive win for the Intel architecture.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The Arc A550M has a TDP of 60 W, while the Tesla M40 has a TDP of 250 W. The Tesla M40 also requires an 8-pin EPS power connector and a suggested 600 W PSU, whereas the Arc A550M uses an integrated form factor with no external power connectors listed.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life. The Tesla M40 was released on 2015-11-09, with the Tesla Kepler as its predecessor and Tesla Pascal as its successor. The Arc A550M has no listed release date or successor.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The Intel Arc A550M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture using the DG2-512 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. This places it in the Alchemist generation for Arc 5 Mobile. The Tesla M40 uses NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM200 chip, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is stark: 6 nm versus 28 nm, which directly impacts transistor density. The Intel chip packs 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, achieving a density of 53.4M per mm². The NVIDIA chip has 8,000 million transistors on a larger 601 mm² die, with a density of only 13.3M per mm².

Feature support is another major divider. The Arc A550M includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the Tesla M40 has none. The Intel card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Tesla M40 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the Arc A550M's API set is more forward-looking. The Tesla M40 compensates with sheer scale: 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, versus the Arc's 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. However, the Arc A550M achieves higher pixel and texture rates despite fewer units: 131.2 GPixel/s and 262.4 GTexel/s, compared to 106.8 GPixel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s for the Tesla.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The Arc A550M runs at a 900 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost, while the Tesla M40 sits at 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. The Intel card's boost clock is nearly double the NVIDIA's, reflecting the efficiency gains of the newer process. Memory clocks also differ: the Arc uses 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) GDDR6, while the Tesla uses 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) GDDR5. The Tesla M40's wider 384-bit bus mitigates its slower memory speed, giving it higher overall bandwidth (288.4 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests show a consistent winner. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A550M scores 49,894 against the Tesla M40's 39,192. This is a 27.3% delta in favor of Intel. The margin is significant and suggests that the Arc's modern architecture, higher clocks, and FP32 throughput translate directly into compute performance. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows but remains clear: the Arc scores 49,580, while the Tesla scores 44,602, a delta of 11.2%. The Vulkan test likely benefits the Tesla M40 due to its larger memory bandwidth, but the Arc still prevails.

Looking at the nearest rival data adds context. The Arc A550M's average score of 49,737 sits just 0.4% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (49,957) and 0.5% below the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (50,001). It is 2.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT (50,951) but 2.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT (48,477). The Tesla M40's average score of 41,897 is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB (41,707) and 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (41,187). It trails the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE (42,723) by 1.9% and leads the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (40,870) by 2.5%. These deltas show the Arc A550M competing in a higher performance tier, while the Tesla M40 sits closer to mid-range modern cards.

The win count is decisive: the Arc A550M wins 2 benchmarks, the Tesla M40 wins 0. No test in the data favors the NVIDIA card. This does not mean the Tesla is without merit; its 12 GB memory and higher bandwidth are unquantified in these benchmarks, but the compute scores are unambiguous.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 6 nm for the Arc, 28 nm for the Tesla. Transistor count: 21,700 million versus 8,000 million. Die size: 406 mm² versus 601 mm². Transistor density: 53.4M per mm² versus 13.3M per mm². Base clock: 900 MHz versus 948 MHz. Boost clock: 2050 MHz versus 1112 MHz. Memory clock: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is a key split. The Arc has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla has 12 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla offers 50% more capacity and roughly 29% more bandwidth. Compute units also differ: the Arc has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Tesla has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Arc has 16 RT cores; the Tesla has none. FP32 throughput favors the Arc at 8.397 TFLOPS versus 6.832 TFLOPS. FP16 is listed only for the Arc at 16.79 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specs are drastically different. The Arc has a 60 W TDP and an IGP slot width, meaning it is designed for integrated or mobile use. The Tesla has a 250 W TDP, a dual-slot width, an 8-pin EPS power connector, and a suggested 600 W PSU. The Tesla is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, while the Arc has no listed dimensions. The Arc uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface; the Tesla uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the Arc is described as "Portable Device Dependent," while the Tesla has no outputs. The Tesla's release date is 2015-11-09; the Arc has no release date.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A550M wins on raw compute performance, modern feature support, and efficiency. Its 27.3% lead in OpenCL and 11.2% lead in Vulkan make it the clear choice for general-purpose compute tasks, particularly those that leverage FP32 or FP16 arithmetic. The presence of 16 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support means it can handle ray-traced workloads and modern graphics APIs, something the Tesla M40 cannot do. Its 60 W TDP is a fraction of the Tesla's 250 W, making it suitable for compact or power-constrained systems. The Arc also wins on pixel rate (131.2 GPixel/s vs 106.8 GPixel/s) and texture rate (262.4 GTexel/s vs 213.5 GTexel/s), indicating better rasterization throughput.

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 12 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is 50% larger than the Arc's 8 GB, and its 288.4 GB/s bandwidth is 28.7% higher. This gives it an edge in workloads that are memory-bound, such as large dataset processing, certain scientific simulations, or machine learning inference with large batch sizes. The Tesla also has more shading units (3072 vs 2048), TMUs (192 vs 128), and ROPs (96 vs 64), which could theoretically help in specific parallel workloads that do not rely on modern features. Its PCIe 3.0 interface is older but still functional. The Tesla's dual-slot design and 250 W TDP suggest it is intended for server or workstation environments where power and space are less constrained.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the Intel Arc A550M is the superior GPU for compute performance. It wins both head-to-head tests, has a higher average score (49,737 vs 41,897), higher FP32 throughput (8.397 TFLOPS vs 6.832 TFLOPS), and a significantly higher percentile ranking (86th vs 83rd). Its 6 nm process and Xe-HPG architecture deliver modern features like ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate, which the Tesla M40 lacks entirely. For any user prioritizing raw speed, modern API support, or energy efficiency, the Arc A550M is the data-backed choice.

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 is not without a purpose, but its advantages are narrow. The 12 GB memory capacity and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth are its only clear wins over the Arc A550M. For workloads that require holding large datasets in VRAM or that are heavily bandwidth-dependent, the Tesla M40 could be the better option. Its 3072 shading units and 96 ROPs also provide a larger parallel execution footprint, which may benefit specific compute kernels. However, its 28 nm process, lack of FP16 support, absence of RT cores, and lower overall scores make it a dated product. The Tesla M40 is a specialized tool for legacy server environments; the Arc A550M is the more capable and versatile GPU for everything else.