Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only one directly comparable benchmark between the Intel Arc A750 and the NVIDIA Tesla K40c: Geekbench OpenCL. This single data point is decisive. The Intel Arc A750 scores 98,554, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17,468. The delta is 464.2%, meaning the Arc A750 delivers roughly 4.6 times the compute performance in this specific workload. For context, the A750's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 20,582, while the Tesla K40c's average is 17,468, which is exactly its single Geekbench score.

Looking at where each card sits relative to the broader GPU landscape, the Arc A750 ranks in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla K40c ranks in the 61st percentile. That 5-point gap in percentile is far smaller than the raw score difference would suggest, which indicates that the A750's other benchmark results (such as Passmark G3D at 12,534 and 3DMark Steel Nomad at 2,612) pull its average up, while the K40c has no other recorded scores to balance its OpenCL result. The A750's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc B570 (average score 20,556, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534, delta 0.2%), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20,662, delta -0.4%). The Tesla K40c's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509, delta -0.2%), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, delta -0.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639, delta -1%).

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the only head-to-head measurement in the database, so the win count stands at 1 for the Arc A750 and 0 for the Tesla K40c. No other shared tests exist between these two cards, which limits the comparison but does not diminish the magnitude of the OpenCL gap. The Arc A750's score is not just higher; it is categorically in a different performance class for compute workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A750 wins in the only directly comparable benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a margin of 464.2%. This indicates a substantial advantage in general-purpose GPU compute tasks, such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, physics simulation, and data processing. Beyond that single score, the A750 shows a much broader benchmark profile. It has recorded results in 3DMark Steel Nomad (2,612), Passmark DirectX 9 (181), DirectX 10 (65), DirectX 11 (72), DirectX 12 (70), G2D (732), G3D (12,534), and GPU compute (5,368). These results are not directly comparable to the K40c because the Tesla card has no entries for those tests, but they show that the A750 is a versatile card with a full suite of measured capabilities.

The NVIDIA Tesla K40c wins in no recorded head-to-head benchmark. Its only data point is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 17,468, which is 464.2% lower than the A750's result. However, the K40c does have one advantage in its specifications: 12 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the A750's 8 GB of GDDR6. In scenarios where memory capacity matters more than memory bandwidth or compute throughput, such as holding very large datasets or textures in VRAM, the K40c could theoretically accommodate more data. But the recorded benchmark data shows no test where this translates into a performance win. The K40c's memory bandwidth is 288.4 GB/s, which is significantly lower than the A750's 512.0 GB/s, so even with more capacity, it moves data slower.

For gaming and DirectX workloads, the A750 has a clear structural advantage. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the K40c only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). The A750 also has dedicated ray tracing cores (28 of them), which the K40c lacks entirely. For modern game development, content creation, or any workload that leverages ray tracing or DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the A750 is the only viable option between the two. The K40c is a compute-oriented accelerator from 2013, and its architecture predates many modern API features.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The Intel Arc A750 uses the DG2-512 chip, built on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4 million per mm². The NVIDIA Tesla K40c uses the GK180 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of just 12.6 million per mm². The A750 is denser and more modern, despite being physically smaller.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The A750 runs at a base clock of 2050 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz. The K40c runs at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. That is more than a 2.7x difference in boost clock. Memory clocks also differ: the A750 uses 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) GDDR6, while the K40c uses 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) GDDR5. The memory buses are 256-bit for the A750 and 384-bit for the K40c, but the A750's faster memory technology gives it 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 288.4 GB/s.

The compute resources are structured differently. The A750 has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, 112 render output units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The K40c has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. The A750's pixel rate is 268.8 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s for the K40c. Texture rate is 537.6 GTexel/s versus 210.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 17.20 TFLOPS versus 5.046 TFLOPS. The A750 also supports FP16 at 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1), while the K40c has no recorded FP16 capability.

The bus interface differs as well: the A750 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, the K40c uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are a major divergence. The A750 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, making it a fully functional consumer graphics card. The K40c has no display outputs at all, as it is a compute-only accelerator. Both cards are dual-slot, both use a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector setup, and both suggest a 550 W power supply. The K40c has a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches), while the A750's dimensions are not recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A750 scores 98,554, which is 464.2% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla K40c's score of 17,468.

Q: Does the Tesla K40c have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the A750 has 8 GB of GDDR6. However, the A750 has higher bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s.

Q: Can the Tesla K40c be used for gaming?

A: No, the K40c has no display outputs, so it cannot connect to a monitor. It also lacks ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), whereas the A750 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and has 28 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The A750 has a TDP of 225 W, while the K40c has a TDP of 245 W. Both recommend a 550 W power supply.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The A750 has a density of 53.4 million transistors per mm², compared to the K40c's 12.6 million per mm², despite the K40c having a larger die at 561 mm² versus 406 mm².

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are marked end-of-life in the database. The A750 was released on 2022-10-11, and the K40c was released on 2013-10-07.

The Verdict

The database shows a clear winner for general compute performance: the Intel Arc A750. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 98,554 versus 17,468 is a decisive, 464.2% advantage. The A750 also ranks higher among all GPUs, sitting at the 66th percentile versus the K40c's 61st. For any workload that runs OpenCL, the A750 is the only reasonable choice between these two.

The Tesla K40c's only theoretical edge is its larger 12 GB memory pool. If a workload requires more than 8 GB of VRAM and does not depend on high bandwidth or modern API features, the K40c might hold more data. But the recorded data shows no benchmark where this translates into a win. The K40c is also hampered by its age: it uses PCIe 3.0, has no display outputs, no ray tracing support, and a much lower FP32 throughput of 5.046 TFLOPS versus 17.20 TFLOPS.

For a builder deciding between these two cards today, the data points squarely at the Arc A750. It is newer, faster in compute, has a full suite of display outputs, supports modern DirectX and Vulkan (1.4 versus 1.2.175), and offers ray tracing. The K40c is a legacy compute accelerator with a single recorded benchmark that puts it far behind. Unless the 12 GB memory capacity is an absolute requirement and the workload is insensitive to bandwidth, the A750 is the superior card in every measured category.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A750 | NVIDIA Tesla K40c |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Kepler |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 21,700 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 406 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 53.4M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2050 MHz | 745 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 876 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3584 | 2880 |

| TMUs | 224 | 240 |

| ROPs | 112 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 28 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 268.8 GPixel/s | 52.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 537.6 GTexel/s | 210.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 17.20 TFLOPS | 5.046 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 225 W | 245 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 550 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | null | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2022-10-11 | 2013-10-07 |

| Launch MSRP | 289 USD | 7,699 USD |