NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, though not overwhelming, victory for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile across the two shared benchmark tests. The Tesla M40, despite its server-grade pedigree and larger memory pool, fails to secure a single win in the head-to-head comparisons.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 3050 Mobile scores 50,038 points against the Tesla M40's 39,192 points. That represents a 21.7% advantage for the mobile Ampere part. This is a substantial gap, indicating that the newer architecture's compute efficiency more than compensates for its lower raw shader count.

The Vulkan result is closer. The RTX 3050 Mobile posts 49,051 points, while the Tesla M40 manages 44,602 points. The delta here narrows to just 9.1% in favor of the mobile GPU. Vulkan's lower-level API overhead appears to benefit the older Maxwell architecture, reducing the performance disparity seen in OpenCL.

Looking at the broader database context, the Tesla M40's average benchmark score of 41,897 places it in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Tesla M40 24 GB (0.5% higher), the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (1.7% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE (1.9% higher). This suggests the M40 sits in a tightly contested performance band where small architectural differences matter more than raw specifications.

The RTX 3050 Mobile, with an average score of 33,170, lands in the 78th percentile. Its closest competitors are the NVIDIA T550 Mobile (0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro 570 (0.1% lower), and the NVIDIA P104-100 (0.6% higher). The mobile chip's average is dragged down by the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 421 points, which is not part of the M40's benchmark suite.

When interpreting the head-to-head deltas, it is crucial to note that the RTX 3050 Mobile's wins come in tests that favor its newer feature set. OpenCL and Vulkan both exercise compute and graphics workloads that leverage the Ampere architecture's redesigned execution units. The Tesla M40, built on Maxwell 2.0, lacks hardware ray tracing and tensor cores, which may explain its difficulty in keeping pace on modern API workloads.

The aggregate picture is one of generational progress. The RTX 3050 Mobile, despite being a laptop part with a 45 W TDP, outperforms a dual-slot server accelerator that draws 250 W. The efficiency story is compelling: the mobile chip delivers higher scores in both benchmarks while consuming a fraction of the power.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile wins decisively, scoring 50,038 points versus the Tesla M40's 39,192 points, a 21.7% advantage.

Q: How close is the Vulkan performance between the two cards?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile again leads, but by a narrower margin: 49,051 points versus 44,602 points, representing a 9.1% gap.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Tesla M40 averages 41,897 points across all recorded benchmarks, while the RTX 3050 Mobile averages 33,170 points. The M40's average is higher because its two benchmark results are both above 39,000, whereas the mobile chip's 3DMark result of 421 pulls its average down significantly.

Q: How does the Tesla M40 rank against other GPUs in the database?

A: The M40 sits in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the Tesla M40 24 GB, which scores 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE, which scores 1.9% higher.

Q: Where does the RTX 3050 Mobile rank among all GPUs?

A: It sits in the 78th percentile. Its nearest competitor is the NVIDIA T550 Mobile with a 0% delta, and the AMD Radeon Pro 570 trailing by 0.1%.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 have any benchmark where it beats the RTX 3050 Mobile?

A: No. In the two shared head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the RTX 3050 Mobile wins both. The M40 has zero recorded head-to-head victories.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent completely different design philosophies separated by two major architectural generations. The Tesla M40 uses the GM200 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This is a large, power-hungry die measuring 601 mm², containing 8,000 million transistors. The transistor density is a relatively modest 13.3 million per square millimeter, reflecting the older manufacturing node.

The RTX 3050 Mobile uses the GA107 chip, based on Ampere architecture, produced by Samsung on an 8 nm process. This die is much smaller at 200 mm², yet contains more transistors: 8,700 million. The transistor density jumps to 43.5 million per square millimeter, more than three times that of the M40. This density advantage is the foundation of the mobile chip's superior efficiency.

The M40's Maxwell architecture lacks dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores entirely. The RTX 3050 Mobile includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based features like DLSS. These are absent from the Tesla card, which is designed for compute workloads in data centers, not consumer graphics.

API support also differs significantly. The M40 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX 3050 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The newer DirectX feature level on the mobile chip enables advanced effects like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, which the older Maxwell part cannot handle.

The memory subsystem reflects their divergent purposes. The M40 uses GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus, while the RTX 3050 Mobile uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus. The M40's wider bus provides higher bandwidth despite slower memory clocks, but the mobile chip's faster GDDR6 compensates with lower latency per byte.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal stark contrasts in every major category. The Tesla M40 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The RTX 3050 Mobile has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The M40 leads in raw execution resources, but the Ampere architecture extracts more performance per unit.

Clock speeds favor the mobile chip. The M40 runs at a base of 948 MHz with a boost of 1112 MHz. The RTX 3050 Mobile runs at 1065 MHz base and 1343 MHz boost. The mobile GPU sustains higher frequencies despite its much lower power envelope.

Memory capacity and bandwidth tell a different story. The M40 offers 12 GB of GDDR5 across a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3050 Mobile has just 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 192.0 GB/s. The M40's bandwidth advantage is significant for memory-bound workloads, but the mobile chip's smaller capacity is typical for laptop GPUs.

Compute throughput numbers show the M40's raw power advantage. It delivers 6.832 TFLOPS FP32, 106.8 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 213.5 GTexel/s texture rate. The RTX 3050 Mobile produces 5.501 TFLOPS FP32, 42.98 GPixel/s, and 85.95 GTexel/s. The M40 leads in all three metrics, but the benchmark results show the mobile chip winning in actual tests.

Power consumption is the most dramatic difference. The M40 has a 250 W TDP, requires an 8-pin EPS power connector, and a 600 W suggested power supply. The RTX 3050 Mobile has a 45 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, as it is designed for integration into laptops. The M40 is dual-slot with no display outputs, while the mobile chip is IGP and has portable-device-dependent outputs.

Physical dimensions reflect their form factors. The M40 measures 267 mm in length (10.5 inches), while the RTX 3050 Mobile has no listed dimensions, being a mobile BGA part. The M40 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the mobile chip uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The newer PCIe standard offers double the per-lane bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 Mobile wins in the two recorded head-to-head benchmarks, making it the clear choice for modern API-based workloads. Its 21.7% OpenCL advantage and 9.1% Vulkan advantage suggest that Ampere's architectural improvements translate directly into better performance on contemporary compute and graphics APIs. For gaming laptops or mobile workstations, the RTX 3050 Mobile is the superior option, despite its smaller memory pool.

The Tesla M40 retains advantages in several specification categories that matter for specific use cases. Its 12 GB memory capacity and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for large dataset processing in compute environments where memory footprint exceeds the RTX 3050 Mobile's 4 GB limit. The M40's higher FP32 throughput (6.832 TFLOPS versus 5.501 TFLOPS) and superior pixel and texture rates suggest it may outperform in workloads that are not captured by the two shared benchmarks, particularly those that are highly parallel and memory-intensive.

The M40's 250 W TDP and dual-slot form factor make it unsuitable for any mobile or compact application. It requires a server chassis with adequate cooling and power delivery. The RTX 3050 Mobile's 45 W TDP and IGP form factor enable deployment in thin-and-light laptops, where its superior benchmark scores are achieved at a fraction of the power draw.

For users prioritizing raw performance per watt, the RTX 3050 Mobile is the clear winner. The data shows that the mobile chip delivers higher benchmark scores while consuming 82% less power (45 W versus 250 W). This efficiency gap is the defining characteristic of the comparison.

The database percentile rankings add context. The M40's 83rd percentile versus the mobile chip's 78th percentile indicates that the M40 sits higher in the overall GPU hierarchy when averaged across all benchmarks. However, this is partly due to the M40's two strong results versus the mobile chip's three results, one of which (3DMark Steel Nomad at 421 points) is an outlier that heavily penalizes the average.

In practical terms, the RTX 3050 Mobile wins for any application that uses modern graphics APIs, ray tracing, or tensor core features. The Tesla M40 wins for legacy compute workloads that require large memory buffers and where the older Maxwell architecture's raw throughput can be fully utilized. The choice depends entirely on the workload and deployment environment.