NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear pattern in direct comparisons between the NVIDIA Tesla M40 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the TITAN X wins both, but the margin varies significantly by workload type.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN X scores 41471 against the M40's 39192. That is a 5.5% advantage for the TITAN X. This is a moderate lead, indicating that in general-purpose compute tasks, the TITAN X holds a measurable but not overwhelming edge. The M40 is not far behind, and the gap could be considered within the range of a close contest.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is more decisive. The TITAN X reaches 49397, while the M40 scores 44602. The delta here is 9.7% in favor of the TITAN X. Vulkan, being a low-level graphics and compute API, tends to reward higher memory clocks and slight boost clock advantages, which aligns with the TITAN X's specification profile. The M40, despite its compute-oriented positioning, cannot close this gap.

When considering the broader database context, the M40's average benchmark score is 41897, placing it at the 83rd percentile among all GPUs. The TITAN X, with an average of 36530, sits at the 80th percentile. This is an interesting inversion: the M40 has a higher overall average score, yet loses in both direct head-to-head tests. The explanation likely lies in the benchmark pool: the M40's average includes only its two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), both of which are strong for it, while the TITAN X's average also includes a Geekbench Metal score of 18723, which drags down its aggregate. On Metal, the TITAN X is significantly lower than its OpenCL and Vulkan results, and that test is not part of the head-to-head set.

For the head-to-head wins, the tally is 0 for the M40 and 2 for the TITAN X. The M40's best hope lies in a scenario where OpenCL performance is critical and the 5.5% deficit is acceptable, but the data does not show a single test where the M40 comes out ahead. The relative rival data reinforces this: the M40's nearest rival, the Tesla M40 24 GB, scores 41707, which is only 0.5% higher, so the 12 GB M40 is essentially matching its higher-memory sibling. The TITAN X's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5300M, scores 36529, a 0% delta, meaning the TITAN X is perfectly aligned with that mobile GPU in average performance.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same GM200 chip, using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is identical at 8,000 million, and the die size is the same at 601 mm². This yields a transistor density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. The core compositions match exactly: 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, as they predate those hardware additions.

The differences are in clock speeds and memory configuration. The M40 has a base clock of 948 MHz and a boost of 1112 MHz. The TITAN X has a higher base clock of 1000 MHz but a slightly lower boost of 1089 MHz. This is an interesting trade-off: the M40's boost is 23 MHz higher, but the TITAN X's base is 52 MHz higher, which means at sustained full load, the TITAN X might sit at a lower boost ceiling, but in everyday operation, it starts from a higher floor.

Memory speed is where the TITAN X stretches further. The M40 runs its GDDR5 at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s. The TITAN X runs its GDDR5 at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), producing 336.6 GB/s. Both have 12 GB of memory on a 384-bit bus. The bandwidth difference is 48.2 GB/s, which is a 16.7% advantage for the TITAN X. This directly impacts the Vulkan score, as higher memory bandwidth helps with texture-heavy and geometry-heavy workloads.

The pixel rate and texture rate also differ slightly. The M40 achieves 106.8 GPixel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s, while the TITAN X achieves 104.5 GPixel/s and 209.1 GTexel/s. Despite the TITAN X's higher memory bandwidth, the M40 has a small lead in these fill rates, likely due to its higher boost clock. The FP32 throughput is nearly identical: 6.832 TFLOPS for the M40 and 6.691 TFLOPS for the TITAN X, a 2% difference in favor of the M40.

Power draw is the same at 250 W for both, and both recommend a 600 W power supply. The physical dimensions are the same length at 267 mm, but the TITAN X is taller and thicker: 111 mm high and 38 mm wide, while the M40's height and width are not recorded. The M40 has a dual-slot width, as does the TITAN X. The power connectors differ: the M40 uses an 8-pin EPS, whereas the TITAN X uses a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the measured data, the TITAN X wins in the two benchmark scenarios that are directly comparable: OpenCL and Vulkan. For OpenCL, the 5.5% margin is moderate, meaning the TITAN X is a safer pick for general-purpose GPU compute where OpenCL is the target API. For Vulkan, the 9.7% margin is substantial, making the TITAN X clearly preferable for Vulkan-based games or applications that use this low-level API.

The M40's wins are more subtle and not reflected in the head-to-head scores. It has a higher average benchmark score (41897 vs 36530), and a higher percentile (83 vs 80). This is because the M40's benchmark set is limited to two high-scoring tests, while the TITAN X includes a Metal test that scores only 18723, which pulls its average down. If the workload is Metal-based, the TITAN X's Metal score is far lower than its OpenCL, so the M40 would win that comparison by a large margin, but that test is not included in the head-to-head data.

The M40 also has a slight edge in pixel rate (106.8 vs 104.5 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.5 vs 209.1 GTexel/s), which translates to a small advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution rasterization without complex shading. The FP32 performance is 2% higher on the M40, which could matter for single-precision compute tasks where math throughput is the bottleneck.

The TITAN X's memory bandwidth advantage of 336.6 GB/s is its strongest asset. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as large database filtering, big data visualization, or high-resolution texture streaming, this bandwidth is a clear win. The M40's bandwidth is still 288.4 GB/s, which is capable, but the 16.7% gap is significant.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The GeForce GTX TITAN X scores 49397 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Tesla M40 scores 44602, giving the TITAN X a 9.7% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The TITAN X has 336.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the M40 has 288.4 GB/s. Both use 12 GB GDDR5 over a 384-bit bus, but the TITAN X runs at 7 Gbps effective memory speed, while the M40 runs at 6 Gbps.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Tesla M40 has a higher average benchmark score of 41897, compared to the TITAN X's 36530. However, this is because the TITAN X includes a Metal score of 18723 in its average, which drags it down.

Q: Do they have the same core configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 3072 shading units, 192 texture units, and 192 render output units. They also have the same transistor count and die size.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The Tesla M40 has a boost clock of 1112 MHz, which is 23 MHz higher than the TITAN X's boost of 1089 MHz. However, the TITAN X has a higher base clock: 1000 MHz versus 948 MHz.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the M40 wins?

A: In the head-to-head data, the M40 wins zero tests. The TITAN X wins both OpenCL and Vulkan. The M40 does have a higher FP32 throughput (6.832 TFLOPS vs 6.691 TFLOPS), but that is not reflected in the benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Tesla M40 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X |

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

| Base Clock | 948 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1112 MHz | 1089 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1753 MHz, 7 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 336.6 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 106.8 GPixel/s | 104.5 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.5 GTexel/s | 209.1 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.832 TFLOPS | 6.691 TFLOPS |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Dimensions (H x W) | Not recorded | 111 mm x 38 mm |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | 999 USD |

| Release Date | 2015-11-09 | 2015-03-16 |

The M40 has no display outputs, which aligns with its compute-accelerator role. The TITAN X has full display outputs, making it usable as a standard graphics card. The TITAN X is physically taller and thicker, but both are the same length (267 mm). The M40's power connector is an 8-pin EPS, typical for server power, while the TITAN X uses standard PCIe power. Both are end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data directs two different buyers. The Tesla M40 is not a graphics card; it has no display outputs and is designed for compute acceleration in servers. It has a higher average benchmark score (41897) and a higher percentile (83rd), which means that for someone comparing across all database GPUs, the M40 is a more consistent performer in the tests it participates in. It also has a slightly higher boost clock and a small lead in fill rates and FP32.

However, if the workload involves Vulkan, the TITAN X is the clear choice. Its 9.7% Vulkan lead is substantial, and its OpenCL lead of 5.5% means it wins in the two most common general-purpose compute APIs. The TITAN X also offers a huge memory bandwidth advantage (336.6 vs 288.4 GB/s), which is likely the reason for its benchmark edge. The TITAN X's Metal score is low (18723), but that test is not part of the head-to-head.

For a user building a compute server with no display needs, the M40's absence of display outputs is not a drawback, and its higher average score and percentile suggest better stability across its tested workloads. For a user who needs a graphics card that can also compute, the TITAN X has display outputs and wins every recorded head-to-head test.

The final recommendation is simple: pick the TITAN X if you need graphics output and want the best recorded benchmark scores in OpenCL and Vulkan. Pick the M40 if you are building a headless compute node and want the higher average score and the slight edge in FP32 and fill rates. The TITAN X's 999 USD launch MSRP was recorded, while the M40's was not.