Intel Arc A730M vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB Comparison

The Intel Arc A730M and NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB represent two very different eras of GPU design, yet they land close in overall benchmark standing. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy in compute workloads, but each card carries distinct architectural trade-offs that matter beyond raw scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is brief but decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc A730M scores 70,352 against the Tesla M40’s 37,439. That is an 87.9% advantage for Intel — a massive margin that reflects not just clock speed but the fundamental efficiency of a modern 6 nm design versus a 28 nm behemoth. The Arc A730M nearly doubles the Tesla M40’s raw compute output in this API.

The Geekbench Vulkan result narrows the gap but still favors Intel decisively. The Arc A730M posts 64,693 while the Tesla M40 manages 45,975, giving Intel a 40.7% lead. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose driver overhead; the fact that Intel still wins by over 40% suggests the hardware advantage is real, not merely a driver artifact. The Tesla M40’s Maxwell architecture was never optimized for Vulkan’s explicit multi-threading model, and the data reflects that.

Across the two shared benchmarks, Intel wins 2 and Tesla wins 0. No benchmark in the data set favors the Tesla M40. However, the overall average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The Arc A730M averages 45,592, while the Tesla M40 averages 41,707 — an 8.5% gap in Intel’s favor. The nearest rival lists place both cards in the same percentile neighborhood: the Arc sits at the 84th percentile, the Tesla at the 83rd. That means the Tesla’s single strong OpenCL score is dragged down by its Vulkan weakness, while the Arc is more balanced.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides context. The Arc A730M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT at 45,384 (a 0.5% delta), and it sits just ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45,972 (-0.8%) and the RTX 5090 Mobile at 45,152 (1%). The Tesla M40’s nearest rival is another Tesla M40 at 41,897 (-0.5%), closely followed by the RTX 3080 Ti at 41,187 (1.3%) and the Radeon Pro 5300 at 40,870 (2%). Both cards are in a dense performance cluster, but the Arc holds a consistent edge across its benchmark suite.

The OpenCL delta is the single most striking number in the comparison. An 87.9% lead in one test is not a marginal victory; it is a generational leap. The Vulkan gap, while smaller, still represents a comfortable win. The data does not support any scenario where the Tesla M40 outperforms the Arc A730M in compute throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A730M averages 45,592 across its benchmark results, while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB averages 41,707. This puts the Arc at the 84th percentile of all GPUs and the Tesla at the 83rd.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL compute?

A: The Arc A730M scores 70,352 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Tesla M40’s 37,439, a delta of 87.9% in Intel’s favor.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data contains only two tests — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — and the Intel Arc A730M wins both.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Intel Arc A730M packs 53.4 million transistors per mm², while the Tesla M40 achieves 13.3 million per mm². This is a direct consequence of the 6 nm versus 28 nm process nodes.

Q: Which card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the Intel Arc A730M, which lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support. The Tesla M40 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), a lower feature level.

Q: How do memory capacities compare?

A: The Tesla M40 24 GB has double the memory of the Arc A730M’s 12 GB, but the Arc has higher bandwidth at 336.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s despite the narrower 192-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different philosophies. The Intel Arc A730M uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 406 mm² housing 21,700 million transistors. The Tesla M40 uses the older Maxwell 2.0 architecture on 28 nm TSMC, with a larger die at 601 mm² but only 8,000 million transistors. Density tells the story: Intel achieves 53.4M transistors per mm² versus NVIDIA’s 13.3M per mm².

Clock speeds reflect the process advantage. The Arc A730M runs at a base of 1100 MHz and boosts to 2050 MHz, while the Tesla M40 sits at 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. The Arc’s boost clock is nearly double the Tesla’s, and that directly feeds its fill-rate advantages: the Arc delivers 196.8 GPixel/s pixel rate and 393.6 GTexel/s texture rate, versus the Tesla’s 106.8 GPixel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s.

Ray tracing is another clear differentiator. The Arc A730M includes 24 RT cores; the Tesla M40 has none. This is not a minor feature gap — it reflects the architectural generation. Maxwell 2.0 predates hardware ray tracing entirely. The Arc also supports FP16 at 25.19 TFLOPS (2:1), while the Tesla M40 lists no FP16 capability at all, sticking to 6.832 TFLOPS FP32.

The process node and transistor budget explain everything else. Intel fit more than 2.5 times the transistors onto a die that is 33% smaller. The Tesla’s 601 mm² die is enormous by modern standards, but its 28 nm process forces a choice between transistor count and power. NVIDIA chose 8 billion transistors; Intel chose 21.7 billion. The result is a GPU that does more work per clock and per watt.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A730M | NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB |

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

| Chip | DG2-512 | GM200 |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 21,700 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 406 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | 948 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2050 MHz | 1112 MHz |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 336.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz / 14 Gbps effective | 1502 MHz / 6 Gbps effective |

| RT Cores | 24 | None |

| FP32 | 12.60 TFLOPS | 6.832 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 25.19 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| Pixel Rate | 196.8 GPixel/s | 106.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 393.6 GTexel/s | 213.5 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 80 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

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

| Power Connectors | None | 8-pin EPS |

| Suggested PSU | None | 600 W |

| Length | Not specified | 267 mm / 10.5 inches |

The specs reveal a stark contrast in memory strategy. The Tesla M40 offers 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, but the memory clock is just 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A730M uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a narrower 192-bit bus, but the higher 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) clock delivers 336.0 GB/s. Intel achieves more bandwidth with half the memory capacity and a narrower bus.

Power consumption is another major split. The Tesla M40 draws 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W PSU with an 8-pin EPS connector. The Arc A730M is rated at 80 W with no external power connector listed — it is an IGP, designed to be integrated into a laptop. The Tesla is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm; the Arc has no physical dimensions listed because it is not a discrete add-in card.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A730M wins in every measured benchmark and in nearly every meaningful specification category. It dominates compute performance, with 12.60 TFLOPS FP32 versus the Tesla’s 6.832 TFLOPS. It wins on memory bandwidth (336.0 GB/s vs 288.4 GB/s), pixel rate (196.8 GPixel/s vs 106.8 GPixel/s), and texture rate (393.6 GTexel/s vs 213.5 GTexel/s). It also brings modern features like ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate support.

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB wins on memory capacity alone. Its 24 GB of GDDR5 doubles the Arc’s 12 GB. For workloads that require large datasets to reside in VRAM — such as certain scientific computing or machine learning inference tasks — that extra capacity could be the deciding factor, even if the bandwidth is lower. The Tesla also has a wider 384-bit memory bus, which can be advantageous for certain access patterns, though the data shows this does not translate into a bandwidth win.

The Tesla’s nearest rival list includes the RTX 3080 Ti at 41,187 average score, which is actually 1.3% higher than the Tesla’s own average. That suggests the Tesla sits in a performance class with consumer gaming GPUs from several generations later. The Arc’s rivals include the RTX 5090 Mobile at 45,152, which is only 1% behind — meaning the Arc is competitive with NVIDIA’s latest mobile flagship in average score.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute performance: the Intel Arc A730M. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has nearly double the FP32 throughput, higher fill rates, and does so at 80 W versus the Tesla’s 250 W. The Arc also brings ray tracing, FP16 support, and DirectX 12 Ultimate — features the Tesla simply does not have. For anyone running general-purpose GPU compute, OpenCL, or Vulkan workloads, the Arc A730M is the faster card by a wide margin.

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB has one compelling argument: memory capacity. At 24 GB, it holds twice the data of the Arc. If a workload requires a model or dataset that fits in 24 GB but not 12 GB, the Tesla becomes the only option between these two. Its 83rd percentile standing and average score of 41,707 are respectable, but the card is an older, less efficient design. The Tesla’s release date of 2015-11-09 and its predecessor/successor lineage (Tesla Kepler to Tesla Pascal) place it firmly in a prior generation.

The verdict depends on the use case. For raw compute speed, modern API support, and energy efficiency, the Arc A730M is the obvious choice. For maximum VRAM capacity in a datacenter-style accelerator with no display output, the Tesla M40 remains relevant — but the benchmark data shows it is significantly slower in every measured test. Users who need the Tesla’s 24 GB should be prepared for 87.9% lower OpenCL performance and 40.7% lower Vulkan performance relative to the Arc. The Arc’s higher transistor density (53.4M / mm² vs 13.3M / mm²) and modern process node are the underlying reasons for this generational gap.