NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40m Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 and the NVIDIA Tesla K40m are separated by seven years of GPU architecture evolution, yet both occupy distinct positions in the database. The RTX 3080 is a consumer-focused Ampere part, while the Tesla K40m is a Kepler-era compute accelerator. Benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the K40m still holds relevance in specific legacy compute contexts. The recorded measurements reveal how far GPU design has progressed in shading throughput, memory bandwidth, and feature support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are lopsided. The RTX 3080 scores 152,423 points, while the Tesla K40m scores 19,885 points. This represents a 666.5% advantage for the RTX 3080, making it roughly 7.7 times faster in raw OpenCL compute performance. This is not a marginal generational improvement; it is a complete overhaul of compute capability.

The RTX 3080’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 23,172, which places it at the 68th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the aggregate rankings are the NVIDIA P106-100 (average score 23,249, 0.3% ahead of the RTX 3080), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (23,250, 0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23,273, 0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X (23,276, 0.4% ahead). These deltas are tiny, meaning the RTX 3080 sits in a tightly packed performance cluster when averaged across all workload types, despite its massive OpenCL lead over the K40m.

The Tesla K40m’s average benchmark score is 19,885, placing it at the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W7000 (average score 19,905, 0.1% ahead of the K40m), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, 0.6% behind the K40m), the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637, 1.3% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602, 1.4% behind). The K40m is therefore competitive with a cluster of professional and midrange consumer GPUs from a later era, but it is nowhere near the RTX 3080.

In the head-to-head comparison, the RTX 3080 wins the single recorded benchmark, and the K40m wins none. The 666.5% delta in OpenCL is the headline number. For context, the RTX 3080’s 152,423 OpenCL score is more than seven times the K40m’s 19,885. This gap is consistent with the architectural differences detailed below, particularly the RTX 3080’s much higher FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 3080 uses the GA102 chip built on Samsung’s 8 nm process, while the Tesla K40m uses the GK110B chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The manufacturing node difference is significant: 8 nm versus 28 nm. The RTX 3080 packs 28,300 million transistors onto a 628 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The K40m has 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, for a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The RTX 3080 crams roughly four times as many transistors into a slightly larger die area, a direct result of the finer process node.

Clock speeds also favor the RTX 3080. Its base clock is 1440 MHz with a boost clock of 1710 MHz. The K40m runs at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. The RTX 3080’s boost clock is nearly double the K40m’s base clock. Memory clocks differ as well: the RTX 3080’s memory runs at 1188 MHz with 19 Gbps effective data rate, while the K40m’s memory runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. The RTX 3080 uses 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus, yielding 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The K40m uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s. Despite having 2 GB more memory, the K40m’s bandwidth is less than half the RTX 3080’s.

Compute resources are starkly different. The RTX 3080 has 8,704 shading units, 272 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. The K40m has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RTX 3080 also includes 68 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores, while the K40m has neither. Pixel rate is 164.2 GPixel/s for the RTX 3080 versus 52.56 GPixel/s for the K40m. Texture rate is 465.1 GTexel/s versus 210.2 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 29.77 TFLOPS for the RTX 3080 versus 5.046 TFLOPS for the K40m. The RTX 3080 also supports FP16 at 29.77 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the K40m has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and interface specifications differ substantially. The RTX 3080 has a TDP of 320 W and requires a 700 W suggested power supply, with a single 12-pin power connector. The K40m has a TDP of 245 W and a 550 W suggested PSU, with no power connector details recorded. Both are dual-slot cards. The RTX 3080 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the K40m uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RTX 3080 has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the K40m has no display outputs, confirming its compute-only design.

API support also diverges. The RTX 3080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K40m supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RTX 3080’s higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version reflect its modern architecture and consumer gaming focus. The K40m’s API support is functional but outdated.

Physical dimensions differ slightly: the RTX 3080 is 285 mm long, 112 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. The K40m is 267 mm long, with height and width not recorded. Both cards are end-of-life in production status. The RTX 3080 was released on August 31, 2020, with a launch MSRP of 699 USD. The K40m was released on November 21, 2013, with a launch MSRP of 7,699 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3080 wins in every measured benchmark category within the database. Beyond the 666.5% OpenCL lead, its individual benchmark scores show dominance across different workloads. In PassMark tests, the RTX 3080 scores 25,086 in G3D, 14,397 in GPU compute, 1,054 in G2D, 258 in DirectX 9, 207 in DirectX 11, 170 in DirectX 10, and 100 in DirectX 12. The K40m has no recorded scores in these tests, meaning the RTX 3080 is the only card with data for DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 workloads in this comparison. The RTX 3080 also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4,407 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,620, both of which the K40m lacks entirely.

The RTX 3080’s advantage is most pronounced in compute-heavy and modern API workloads. Its 29.77 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 760.3 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suited for real-time rendering, ray tracing, and AI inference tasks that leverage its tensor cores. The K40m, with 5.046 TFLOPS and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, is limited to older compute kernels and workloads that do not require modern features.

The K40m’s only advantage is capacity: it has 12 GB of GDDR5 versus the RTX 3080’s 10 GB of GDDR6X. For workloads that require more than 10 GB of memory, the K40m could theoretically hold larger datasets, but its bandwidth is so much lower that any practical benefit is questionable. The K40m also has a lower TDP at 245 W versus 320 W, and a lower suggested PSU requirement at 550 W versus 700 W. In a power-constrained legacy server environment, the K40m might be easier to integrate, but this is a narrow use case.

The RTX 3080 is the clear winner for gaming, modern compute, and any workload using DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, or FP16 math. The K40m is strictly a legacy compute card with no display outputs, no ray tracing, and no tensor cores. Its place is in older HPC clusters or CUDA-based scientific workloads that were designed for Kepler-era hardware and do not benefit from the RTX 3080’s newer features.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 3080 than the Tesla K40m in OpenCL?

A: The RTX 3080 scores 152,423 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the K40m scores 19,885. This is a 666.5% advantage for the RTX 3080.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Tesla K40m has 12 GB of GDDR5, while the RTX 3080 has 10 GB of GDDR6X. However, the RTX 3080’s bandwidth is 760.3 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s for the K40m.

Q: Does the Tesla K40m support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The K40m has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX 3080 has 68 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The RTX 3080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the K40m supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The RTX 3080 also supports Vulkan 1.4, compared to Vulkan 1.2.175 for the K40m.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 throughput?

A: The RTX 3080 delivers 29.77 TFLOPS FP32, while the K40m delivers 5.046 TFLOPS. The RTX 3080 is roughly 5.9 times higher.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life. The RTX 3080 was released on August 31, 2020, and the K40m was released on November 21, 2013.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the RTX 3080 outperforms the Tesla K40m in every recorded benchmark and every relevant architectural metric. The 666.5% OpenCL lead is the most direct comparison, and it is supplemented by the RTX 3080’s modern feature set, including 68 ray tracing cores, 272 tensor cores, 29.77 TFLOPS FP32, and 760.3 GB/s memory bandwidth. The K40m’s 12 GB capacity and lower 245 W TDP are its only recorded advantages, but these do not offset its far lower compute throughput, older 28 nm process, and lack of modern API support.

For any user choosing between these two cards today, the RTX 3080 is the appropriate pick for gaming, real-time rendering, AI workloads, and any application that can leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate or Vulkan 1.4. The K40m remains viable only for legacy CUDA codebases that were optimized for Kepler and require its specific 12 GB memory footprint, though even then its 288.4 GB/s bandwidth will bottleneck modern workloads. The RTX 3080 is the superior hardware by a wide margin, and the benchmark data leaves no ambiguity on this point.