GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head data point available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is not close. The Intel Arc A770M scores 89,494, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40m manages 19,885. That is a 77.8% delta in favor of Intel, meaning the Arc A770M delivers roughly 4.5 times the raw OpenCL compute throughput of the Tesla K40m. In practical terms, this is the difference between a GPU that can handle modern compute workloads with headroom and one that is firmly anchored to the early-2010s era of acceleration.

What makes this gap more striking is where each card sits relative to its own peers. The Tesla K40m’s nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W7000 at 19,905, which is only 0.1% faster, essentially a statistical tie. The K40m also edges out the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT by 0.6% and the AMD FirePro D300 by 1.3%. In other words, the Tesla is exactly where it should be for its vintage: competitive with contemporary workstation and mid-range gaming cards of its generation, but nowhere near the performance class of a 2022-era mobile part.

The Arc A770M, by contrast, sits in a strange neighborhood. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 460 at 18,373, which is 0.1% faster, again a tie, and the AMD FirePro D500 is 0.8% behind Intel. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is 1.1% slower, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile is 1.2% slower. That is a bizarre grouping: the Arc A770M outperforms the Tesla K40m by 77.8% in OpenCL, yet its average benchmark score across all tests (18,383) is actually lower than the Tesla’s single OpenCL result (19,885). The averages include very different test suites, the Arc has ten benchmarks spanning DirectX 9 through 12, Vulkan, and compute, while the Tesla only has the one OpenCL entry, so the comparison is apples-to-oranges across the full dataset.

Still, the OpenCL head-to-head is unambiguous. The Intel part’s 89,494 score is not just a win; it is a generational leap. The Tesla’s 52.56 GPixel/s pixel rate and 210.2 GTexel/s texture rate are dwarfed by the Arc’s 262.4 GPixel/s and 524.8 GTexel/s. The FP32 numbers tell the same story: 5.046 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 16.79 TFLOPS for Intel, a 3.3x advantage. There is no scenario in the data where the Tesla K40m wins a performance contest against the Arc A770M; the only question is by how much.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A770M scores 89,494 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 19,885 for the NVIDIA Tesla K40m. Intel leads by 77.8% in that head-to-head test.

Q: How does the Tesla K40m compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Tesla K40m’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W7000, which scores 19,905, a 0.1% difference. The Tesla is also 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT and 1.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro D300.

Q: Is the Intel Arc A770M consistently faster across all benchmarks?

A: In the single head-to-head test (OpenCL), the Arc is far faster. However, its average benchmark score across ten tests is 18,383, which is actually below the Tesla’s 19,885 OpenCL-only average, but the tests are not comparable because they measure different APIs and workloads.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: The Tesla K40m has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A770M has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The Arc A770M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla K40m supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the transistor count and process node for each chip?

A: The Tesla K40m uses 7,080 million transistors on a 28 nm TSMC node. The Arc A770M uses 21,700 million transistors on a 6 nm TSMC node.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is not just generational, it is philosophical. The NVIDIA Tesla K40m is built on the Kepler architecture (chip GK110B), a design from 2013 that prioritizes compute density over feature breadth. Kepler was NVIDIA’s answer to massively parallel HPC workloads, and it shows: 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, all running at a modest 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. The chip is large (561 mm²) but sparse by modern standards, with a transistor density of just 12.6 million per mm². There are no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, features that did not exist in consumer or workstation silicon at the time.

The Intel Arc A770M, on the other hand, is a Xe-HPG architecture part (chip DG2-512) from the Alchemist generation, built for mobile gaming and compute. It packs 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, significantly more of everything except TMU count per shading unit. Critically, it includes 32 ray tracing cores, a feature completely absent from the Tesla. The clock speeds are far higher too: 1,650 MHz base and 2,050 MHz boost. The chip is smaller in die size (406 mm²) despite having three times as many transistors (21,700 million vs 7,080 million), because it is fabbed on TSMC’s 6 nm process versus 28 nm. That yields a transistor density of 53.4 million per mm², more than four times the Tesla’s.

The memory subsystems also reflect different design goals. The Tesla uses 12 GB of GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus, achieving 288.4 GB/s. The Arc uses 16 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus, but achieves 512.0 GB/s due to faster memory clocks (16 Gbps effective versus 6 Gbps). The Tesla’s wider bus suggests it was designed for bandwidth-hungry HPC workloads, while the Arc’s narrower but faster bus is typical of modern gaming parts that rely on cache hierarchies.

API support is another clear divide. The Tesla is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, functional but dated. The Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, which means it can handle mesh shaders, variable rate shading, and other modern rendering features. The Tesla has no display outputs at all, confirming its role as a compute-only accelerator. The Arc’s outputs are “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning it relies on the host laptop’s display connections.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 28 nm (NVIDIA) versus 6 nm (Intel). Transistors: 7,080 million versus 21,700 million. Die size: 561 mm² versus 406 mm². Transistor density: 12.6M/mm² versus 53.4M/mm². Base clock: 745 MHz versus 1,650 MHz. Boost clock: 876 MHz versus 2,050 MHz. Memory clock: 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration: 12 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus versus 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth: 288.4 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Shading units: 2,880 versus 4,096. TMUs: 240 versus 256. ROPs: 48 versus 128. Ray tracing cores: none versus 32. Pixel rate: 52.56 GPixel/s versus 262.4 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 210.2 GTexel/s versus 524.8 GTexel/s. FP32: 5.046 TFLOPS versus 16.79 TFLOPS. FP16: not listed for NVIDIA versus 33.59 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel.

Power and physical specs also diverge sharply. The Tesla has a 245 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested PSU, occupying a dual-slot form factor with a 267 mm length. The Arc A770M has a 120 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics package) with no listed dimensions or PSU requirement. The Tesla uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The Tesla has no display outputs; the Arc’s are portable-device dependent. Release dates: the Tesla launched on 2013-11-21 with a 7,699 USD launch MSRP, while the Arc has no release date or MSRP listed. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A770M is the superior GPU in raw performance. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 77.8%, and its architectural advantages, 6 nm process, 32 RT cores, modern API support, 512 GB/s bandwidth, and over three times the FP32 throughput, make it the logical choice for any compute or gaming workload that can leverage those features.

However, the Tesla K40m is not without a case. Its 65th percentile ranking versus all GPUs is slightly better than the Arc’s 62nd percentile, though that is based on different benchmark suites. The Tesla’s 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus might still be relevant for legacy HPC workloads that were optimized for Kepler’s compute model. Its 245 W TDP, while high, is a known quantity, and the dual-slot design is standard for server installations. The 7,699 USD launch MSRP indicates it was a premium product in its day.

For a modern user, the choice is clear: the Arc A770M offers dramatically better performance per watt (120 W TDP versus 245 W), supports current APIs, and brings ray tracing to the table. The Tesla K40m is a historical artifact, end-of-life, no display outputs, and limited to a 2013-era API stack. The only scenario where the Tesla makes sense is if you are maintaining legacy infrastructure that specifically requires Kepler compute behavior and cannot be migrated.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A770M wins every measurable performance category. It is the pick for OpenCL compute workloads, with a 77.8% head-to-head advantage. It wins on memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s), on pixel fill rate (262.4 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s), and on texture fill rate (524.8 GTexel/s versus 210.2 GTexel/s). It offers 16 GB of GDDR6 versus 12 GB of GDDR5, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 32 ray tracing cores. Its lower TDP (120 W versus 245 W) makes it suitable for mobile platforms, and its PCIe 4.0 interface doubles the bus bandwidth of the Tesla’s PCIe 3.0.

The NVIDIA Tesla K40m’s wins are narrower and more situational. It holds a 65th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, three points higher than the Arc’s 62nd, though this is based on a single OpenCL test versus ten varied tests. It has a wider memory bus (384-bit versus 256-bit), which could theoretically benefit certain memory-latency-sensitive workloads, though the Arc’s higher bandwidth makes this moot in practice. It also has a higher transistor density per mm²? No, that is wrong, the Arc has 53.4M/mm² versus the Tesla’s 12.6M/mm². The Tesla’s only clear advantage is its established ecosystem: it was a 7,699 USD workstation part with a known dual-slot form factor and a 550 W PSU recommendation, making it a drop-in replacement for legacy Kepler systems.

For use-case splits: the Arc A770M is the answer for modern gaming (DirectX 12 Ultimate), ray-traced workloads (32 RT cores), and any compute task that can use FP16 (33.59 TFLOPS versus no FP16 support on the Tesla). The Tesla K40m is the answer for maintaining ancient HPC clusters that require Kepler-specific code paths, or for anyone who needs a compute card with no display outputs and does not care about modern API support. In every other scenario, the data says Intel wins.