NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40m Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K40m and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 are both 28 nm Kepler parts from 2013, but they target different worlds: the former is a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs, while the latter is a consumer graphics card. The benchmark data, however, reveals a clear performance hierarchy that favors the GTX 780 in the one test where they meet directly.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole common benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The GeForce GTX 780 scores 22,863 points, while the Tesla K40m trails at 19,885 points. That difference translates to a 13% delta in favor of the GTX 780, according to the head-to-head comparison. This is a significant margin for two cards built on the same fundamental architecture, and it underscores how clock speed and configuration can outweigh a raw shading-unit advantage.

Looking at the wider context, the Tesla K40m’s score places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19,885. Its nearest rivals are all within a hair: the AMD FirePro W7000 is 0.1% ahead, the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is 0.6% behind, the AMD FirePro D300 is 1.3% behind, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is 1.4% behind. In other words, the K40m sits in a dense pack of mid-range performers, neither dominating nor being dominated by its immediate competition.

The GTX 780, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 19,164 across three tests (OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan), placing it in the 64th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA TITAN Xp (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (0.4% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (0.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (0.7% behind). Notably, the GTX 780’s OpenCL score of 22,863 is substantially higher than its own average, indicating that its Vulkan (24,514) and Metal (10,114) results drag the mean down. The Vulkan score is particularly strong, exceeding the OpenCL figure by 7.2%, while the Metal score is less than half of the OpenCL number.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780 wins the only direct comparison, but the broader picture depends on the workload. The GTX 780’s 13% lead in OpenCL suggests it is the better choice for general-purpose compute tasks that leverage that API. Its Vulkan score of 24,514 further reinforces its strength in modern, low-overhead graphics APIs, where it outperforms its own OpenCL result by a wide margin. This makes the GTX 780 a more versatile card for both gaming and compute, despite its consumer orientation.

The Tesla K40m, on the other hand, has no display outputs and is designed for server or workstation environments where rendering to a screen is unnecessary. Its single OpenCL score of 19,885 is 13% below the GTX 780’s, but it still lands in the 65th percentile. For workloads that rely on the Tesla’s larger memory pool — 12 GB versus 3 GB — or its full complement of 2,880 shading units, the K40m may be preferable. However, the benchmark data does not include tests that specifically isolate memory capacity or shading-unit scaling, so those advantages remain qualitative rather than quantified here.

In terms of raw compute throughput, the K40m’s FP32 rating of 5.046 TFLOPS exceeds the GTX 780’s 4.156 TFLOPS by roughly 21%. Similarly, the K40m’s texture rate of 210.2 GTexel/s is about 21% higher than the GTX 780’s 173.2 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 52.56 GPixel/s beats the GTX 780’s 43.30 GPixel/s by the same margin. Yet the GTX 780 still wins the OpenCL benchmark, which suggests that clock speed and driver optimizations play a larger role in that specific test than theoretical peak throughput.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process with the same GK110-class silicon. The Tesla K40m uses the GK110B chip, while the GTX 780 uses the GK110 chip. Both have 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, yielding an identical transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The architecture is Kepler for both, and both belong to the same generation of NVIDIA parts, though they are segmented differently: the K40m is in the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) family, while the GTX 780 is in the GeForce 700 line.

The key architectural difference lies in the execution resources. The Tesla K40m is fully enabled, with 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 780 is a cut-down version, with 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and the same 48 ROPs. That means the K40m has 25% more shaders and TMUs than the GTX 780, which should theoretically translate into higher compute throughput. Both cards lack RT cores and tensor cores, as they predate those technologies.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The K40m carries 12 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 780 has 3 GB. Both use a 384-bit memory bus and achieve the same 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth, with identical memory clocks of 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The larger capacity on the K40m is clearly aimed at datasets that exceed 3 GB, which is common in scientific computing and deep learning workloads. The GTX 780’s smaller pool is sufficient for gaming and most consumer applications, but it would be a limitation for large-scale compute tasks.

Specification Differences

The most obvious differences appear in the spec sheet. Clock speeds favor the GTX 780: its base clock is 863 MHz and boost clock is 902 MHz, versus 745 MHz and 876 MHz for the K40m. That 118 MHz gap at base and 26 MHz at boost partially explains the GTX 780’s benchmark lead. Power draw is similar, with the K40m rated at 245 W and the GTX 780 at 250 W, but the suggested PSU differs: 550 W for the K40m and 600 W for the GTX 780.

The GTX 780 has display outputs (2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), while the K40m has none. The GTX 780 also has explicit power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin), whereas the K40m’s connector configuration is not listed. Both are dual-slot cards and share the same length of 267 mm (10.5 inches), but the GTX 780 adds height (111 mm) and width (38 mm) dimensions that the K40m lacks. The GTX 780 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the K40m supports DirectX 12 (11_1); both offer OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Release dates differ by six months: the GTX 780 launched on May 22, 2013, and the K40m on November 21, 2013. The GTX 780’s predecessor is GeForce 600 and its successor is GeForce 900; the K40m’s predecessor is Tesla Fermi and its successor is Tesla Maxwell. Both are end-of-life products. The launch MSRP for the K40m was 7,699 USD, while the GTX 780 launched at 649 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 scores 22,863 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 13% higher than the Tesla K40m’s 19,885. The head-to-head benchmark lists the GTX 780 as the winner with a deltaPct of -13 from the K40m’s perspective.

Q: Do both cards use the same memory bus width?

A: Yes, both the Tesla K40m and the GTX 780 use a 384-bit memory bus, and both achieve the same memory bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s with GDDR5 memory clocked at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count?

A: The Tesla K40m has 2,880 shading units, while the GTX 780 has 2,304. This means the K40m has 25% more shading units, yet it still loses the OpenCL benchmark to the GTX 780 by 13%.

Q: Does the Tesla K40m support display outputs?

A: No, the Tesla K40m has no display outputs. It is designed for compute-only workloads, whereas the GTX 780 includes 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: How do the FP32 performance figures compare?

A: The Tesla K40m delivers 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is about 21% higher than the GTX 780’s 4.156 TFLOPS. Despite this theoretical advantage, the GTX 780 wins the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The Tesla K40m has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 780 has 3 GB. Both run at the same clock speed and bus width, so the K40m offers four times the capacity at identical bandwidth.