GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K40m and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear generational shift in compute capability, power efficiency, and feature support, though the Tesla K40m retains relevance in specific legacy workloads. This analysis compares the two based strictly on benchmark results and specification data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 scores 79,966 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40m scores 19,885 points. This represents a delta of -75.1% for the Tesla K40m, meaning the RTX 2070 delivers roughly four times the OpenCL compute performance. The margin is substantial and reflects the architectural advancements in the Turing generation, including higher clock speeds and improved instruction efficiency.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Tesla K40m’s average benchmark score of 19,885 places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W7000, which scores 19,905, a negligible delta of -0.1%. The Tesla K40m also edges out the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, +0.6%), the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637, +1.3%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602, +1.4%). These margins are all within 1.5%, indicating that the K40m’s raw compute performance is closely matched with several contemporary professional and consumer cards from its era.

The RTX 2070, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 18,789, placing it in the 63rd percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation, which scores 18,954, a delta of -0.9%. The RTX 2070 also performs within a narrow band of the NVIDIA Tesla K80 (18,866, -0.4%), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685, +0.6%), and the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626, +0.9%). Despite having a lower average score than the K40m in the aggregate database, the RTX 2070’s single OpenCL result is dramatically higher, suggesting the average score is pulled down by other benchmarks where it may not excel.

The discrepancy between the head-to-head OpenCL result and the average scores highlights a critical point: the RTX 2070’s compute advantage is massive in the Geekbench OpenCL workload, while its overall benchmark profile is more mixed. The RTX 2070 also has a Passmark G3D score of 16,094 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 6,411, which are not available for the K40m. In contrast, the K40m has only a single benchmark entry in the data set, limiting direct comparison to the OpenCL test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 is significantly faster, scoring 79,966 points in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the Tesla K40m’s 19,885 points. The delta is -75.1% for the K40m, indicating the RTX 2070 is roughly four times faster in this specific workload.

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

A: The K40m’s average score of 19,885 is within 1.4% of all its nearest rivals, including the AMD FirePro W7000 (19,905), AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765), AMD FirePro D300 (19,637), and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602). It is essentially tied with the FirePro W7000, with a delta of just -0.1%.

Q: What are the key performance metrics where the RTX 2070 excels?

A: Beyond the OpenCL result, the RTX 2070 has a Passmark G3D score of 16,094 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 6,411. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which the K40m lacks, and has dedicated RT (36) and Tensor (288) cores for specialized workloads.

Q: Is the Tesla K40m still competitive in any benchmark?

A: In the available data, the K40m does not win any direct head-to-head benchmarks against the RTX 2070. However, its average benchmark score of 19,885 is higher than the RTX 2070’s average of 18,789, though this is based on different test suites and may not reflect real-world performance parity.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Tesla K40m has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 2070 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 2070 has a higher bandwidth despite a smaller memory pool.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The Tesla K40m has a TDP of 245 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The RTX 2070 has a TDP of 175 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The RTX 2070 is more power-efficient, requiring 70 W less power and a 100 W smaller PSU recommendation.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice for most workloads: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 is the superior GPU. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 79,966 dwarfs the Tesla K40m’s 19,885, a difference of -75.1% in the K40m’s favor for the RTX 2070. The RTX 2070 also offers modern features like ray tracing cores and tensor cores, along with support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, which are absent from the Kepler-based K40m.

However, the Tesla K40m is not without merit. Its 12 GB of GDDR5 memory is 4 GB more than the RTX 2070’s 8 GB, which could be advantageous for certain memory-bound compute tasks that require large datasets. The K40m’s average benchmark score of 19,885 is also higher than the RTX 2070’s average of 18,789, though this is based on a limited single benchmark for the K40m. The K40m’s launch MSRP was 7,699 USD, while the RTX 2070’s launch MSRP was 499 USD, but this price difference should not be interpreted as a value proposition given the vast performance gap.

For users needing maximum compute throughput, modern API support, and power efficiency, the RTX 2070 is the clear choice. For those requiring a larger memory buffer and working within legacy Kepler-based software ecosystems, the K40m may still serve a niche role, but the benchmark data shows it is outclassed in raw performance. The RTX 2070 wins the head-to-head, and the data suggests it is the more capable card overall.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The Tesla K40m uses a GK110B chip on a 28 nm process, while the RTX 2070 uses a TU106 chip on a 12 nm process, both from TSMC. The K40m has 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a density of 12.6M per mm². The RTX 2070 has 10,800 million transistors on a smaller 445 mm² die, achieving a density of 24.3M per mm².

Clock speeds are significantly higher on the RTX 2070, with a base clock of 1410 MHz and boost of 1620 MHz, compared to the K40m’s 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. The RTX 2070 also has faster memory, running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus the K40m’s 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Memory configurations differ substantially: the K40m has 12 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the RTX 2070 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts vary, with the K40m having 2880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RTX 2070 has fewer shading units (2304) and TMUs (144), but more ROPs (64). The RTX 2070 also adds 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, which the K40m lacks entirely. Pixel and texture rates are higher on the RTX 2070 (103.7 GPixel/s and 233.3 GTexel/s) compared to the K40m (52.56 GPixel/s and 210.2 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is 7.465 TFLOPS for the RTX 2070 versus 5.046 TFLOPS for the K40m, and the RTX 2070 offers FP16 at 14.93 TFLOPS, which the K40m does not support.

Power requirements favor the RTX 2070, with a TDP of 175 W and suggested PSU of 450 W, versus the K40m’s 245 W TDP and 550 W PSU suggestion. The RTX 2070 has a 1x 8-pin power connector, while the K40m has no listed power connectors. Physical dimensions differ, with the K40m being longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus the RTX 2070’s 229 mm (9 inches). The RTX 2070 also has defined height (113 mm) and width (35 mm) measurements, while the K40m only lists length. Display outputs are a major divergence: the K40m has no outputs, while the RTX 2070 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between Kepler and Turing is fundamental. The Tesla K40m is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK110B chip, and is part of the Tesla Kepler generation (Kxx). It relies on a 28 nm process from TSMC, which was high-end in 2013. The architecture is designed for compute density, with a high count of shading units and a wide 384-bit memory bus to feed them. It supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, but lacks hardware ray tracing and tensor cores.

The RTX 2070 is built on the Turing architecture, using the TU106 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 20-series. It uses a more advanced 12 nm process, which allows for higher clock speeds and greater transistor density. Turing introduces dedicated RT cores for real-time ray tracing and tensor cores for AI-driven workloads, which are entirely absent from the K40m. The RTX 2070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, indicating a more modern feature set. Its FP16 performance of 14.93 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is a key advantage for mixed-precision compute, a feature the K40m does not offer.

The memory architecture also reflects generational progress. The K40m uses GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus, prioritizing capacity (12 GB) over raw bandwidth. The RTX 2070 uses faster GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus, achieving higher bandwidth (448.0 GB/s) despite a narrower bus. The chip designs differ in complexity: the K40m’s 561 mm² die is larger but less dense, while the RTX 2070’s 445 mm² die packs more transistors per square millimeter. This efficiency gain is evident in the power figures, with the RTX 2070 delivering more performance at a lower TDP. The K40m’s lack of display outputs positions it as a pure compute accelerator, while the RTX 2070 is a full-featured consumer GPU with multiple display options.