Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40m Comparison

The Intel Arc A750 and NVIDIA Tesla K40m represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects a generational chasm. The Arc A750 is a modern consumer gaming card built on a 6 nm process, while the Tesla K40m is a compute-focused professional accelerator from the Kepler generation. Their head-to-head results and architectural specifications paint a clear picture of progress, with the newer card dominating in raw performance while the older card retains advantages in memory capacity and its specialized compute heritage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is a decisive victory for the Intel Arc A750. The Arc A750 scores a massive 98,554 points, while the Tesla K40m manages only 19,885 points. This gives the Intel card a staggering 395.6% performance advantage, meaning it is nearly five times faster in this compute-oriented workload. This result is not a close contest; it is a demonstration of how far GPU architecture has advanced in the decade separating these products.

Looking at the broader context, the Arc A750's average benchmark score across all tests is 20,582, placing it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc B570 (average score 20,556, a 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (average score 20,534, a 0.2% difference), showing that it sits in a competitive mid-range tier. The Tesla K40m, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 19,885, which puts it in the 65th percentile. Its closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W7000 (average score 19,905, a -0.1% difference) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (average score 19,765, a 0.6% difference). The absolute scores show only a 3.5% difference between the two cards’ average results, but this is misleading because the Arc A750’s score is derived from ten different benchmarks, including modern DirectX 12 and Vulkan tests, while the Tesla K40m’s score comes from a single OpenCL run.

The Arc A750’s individual benchmark results show a wide range of capabilities. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 2,612 points. In Geekbench Vulkan, it hits 85,631 points. Its Passmark G3D score is 12,534, while its Passmark GPU Compute score is 5,368. The Tesla K40m has no comparable data for these tests, so the only true apples-to-apples comparison remains the OpenCL result, which the Intel card wins overwhelmingly.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous, starting with the manufacturing process. The Intel Arc A750 uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Tesla K40m uses a much older 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This leads to a dramatic difference in transistor density: the Arc A750 packs 21,700 million transistors into a die size of 406 mm², yielding a density of 53.4 million transistors per mm². The Tesla K40m has 7,080 million transistors on a larger 561 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.6 million transistors per mm². The Intel card achieves more than four times the transistor density, which directly translates to its performance advantage.

The core configurations differ significantly as well. The Arc A750 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-512 chip, part of the Alchemist generation. It features 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 112 render output units (ROPs). It also includes 28 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Tesla K40m. The Tesla K40m, based on the GK110B chip and Kepler architecture, has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and only 48 ROPs. While the Tesla card has more TMUs, the Intel card has far more shaders and ROPs, which contributes to its superior fill rates.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational progress. The Arc A750 runs at a base clock of 2050 MHz with a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The Tesla K40m is dramatically slower, with a base clock of just 745 MHz and a boost of 876 MHz. This nearly threefold difference in clock speed, combined with the higher core count, explains why the Arc A750 achieves 17.20 TFLOPS of FP32 performance compared to the Tesla K40m’s 5.046 TFLOPS. The Intel card also supports FP16 with a 2:1 ratio at 34.41 TFLOPS, while the Tesla K40m has no FP16 capability listed.

Memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The Arc A750 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla K40m uses 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 288.4 GB/s due to the slower memory clock of 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the Arc’s 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The Tesla card’s memory clock is much slower, but it offers 50% more capacity, which is a notable advantage for large datasets.

Feature support also separates the two. The Arc A750 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla K40m supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel card also has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0), whereas the Tesla K40m has no display outputs at all, being a compute-only accelerator.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A750 wins in almost every measurable performance category. It is the clear choice for gaming, as evidenced by its DirectX 12 and Vulkan benchmark results. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 181, DirectX 10 score of 65, DirectX 11 score of 72, and DirectX 12 score of 70 show broad API support. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,612 reinforces its gaming pedigree. The Arc A750 also excels in compute workloads, as shown by its dominant OpenCL score and its Passmark GPU Compute score of 5,368. For any modern workload, from gaming to general-purpose compute, the Arc A750 is the superior choice.

The NVIDIA Tesla K40m, while vastly outperformed, still has a niche. Its 12 GB of memory is 50% larger than the Arc A750’s 8 GB, which could be beneficial for workloads that require holding larger datasets in VRAM, such as certain scientific simulations or machine learning models that fit within memory constraints. Its compute-oriented design, with no display outputs, means it was built for server environments where rendering to a screen is unnecessary. The Tesla K40m’s Kepler architecture also has a long history of driver optimization for professional compute tasks, though the benchmark data cannot quantify this advantage.

In terms of practical use cases, the Arc A750 is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP and requires a 550 W power supply, along with a 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connector. The Tesla K40m also has a 245 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU, but it is a dual-slot card with a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches). The Intel card is clearly aimed at desktop gaming and content creation, while the Tesla card is a server-grade accelerator. The Arc A750’s production status is end-of-life, as is the Tesla K40m’s, but the former has a successor in Battlemage, while the latter’s successor is Tesla Maxwell.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A750 than the NVIDIA Tesla K40m in the shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A750 scores 98,554 points versus the Tesla K40m’s 19,885 points, making it 395.6% faster.

Q: Does the Tesla K40m have any advantage over the Arc A750?

A: Yes, the Tesla K40m has 12 GB of memory compared to the Arc A750’s 8 GB, offering 50% more capacity for large datasets.

Q: What is the difference in process technology between the two cards?

A: The Arc A750 uses a 6 nm process with a transistor density of 53.4 million per mm², while the Tesla K40m uses a 28 nm process with a density of 12.6 million per mm².

Q: Which card is better for gaming?

A: The Arc A750 is clearly better for gaming, as it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and has modern display outputs (HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0), while the Tesla K40m has no display outputs and only supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for each card?

A: The Arc A750 delivers 17.20 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Tesla K40m delivers 5.046 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The Arc A750 achieves 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth with GDDR6 memory, while the Tesla K40m achieves 288.4 GB/s with GDDR5 memory.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A750 | NVIDIA Tesla K40m |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Kepler |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 7) | Tesla Kepler (Kxx) |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| 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 GDDR6 | 12 GB 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 | 0 |

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

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

| FP32 Performance | 17.20 TFLOPS | 5.046 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1) | N/A |

| TDP | 225 W | 245 W |

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

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

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | N/A | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | N/A |

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

| Release Date | 2022-10-11 | 2013-11-21 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Tesla Fermi |

| Successor | Battlemage | Tesla Maxwell |