NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

The Verdict

The data paints an unambiguous picture: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is the dominant performer in every benchmark category where both cards have results. It wins both head-to-head tests outright, with a 351.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 379.4% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. The Tesla M40, despite being in the same 83rd percentile vs all GPUs, is a completely different class of hardware. Its average benchmark score of 41,897 sits only 1.7% behind the RTX 3080 Ti, but the RTX 4070 Ti's average of 44,795 places it 1.6% ahead of the RTX A6000 and 0.8% behind the RTX 5090 Mobile.

For a gaming or consumer workstation build, the RTX 4070 Ti is the only sensible choice. It has actual display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the Tesla M40 has no outputs at all. The RTX 4070 Ti also brings modern API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the M40 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) — though both support OpenGL 4.6. If you need a compute-only accelerator for a server and your workload is strictly OpenCL or Vulkan, the M40's 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus might suffice, but the performance gap is so massive that the RTX 4070 Ti is almost always the better investment on raw capability alone.

The RTX 4070 Ti is end-of-life and had a launch MSRP of 799 USD. The Tesla M40 is also end-of-life with no MSRP listed. Neither card is current production, so availability and driver support should be verified before purchase. The verdict is simple: pick the RTX 4070 Ti for anything interactive, visual, or modern. Pick the Tesla M40 only if you have a legacy compute pipeline that specifically requires Maxwell 2.0 architecture and cannot be migrated.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti wins every single benchmark that has a comparative result. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 176,953 versus the M40's 39,192 — a 351.5% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 213,808 versus 44,602 — a 379.4% advantage. There are no test categories where the Tesla M40 comes out ahead. The M40's only wins are in the sense of efficiency for its intended role: it consumes 250 W TDP versus the RTX 4070 Ti's 285 W, and it uses a standard 8-pin EPS power connector rather than the RTX 4070 Ti's 1x 16-pin connector, which may matter in older server chassis. The M40 also has a shorter 267 mm length versus the RTX 4070 Ti's 285 mm, making it easier to fit in compact server racks.

However, the use-case split is more nuanced than raw scores. The RTX 4070 Ti is a GeForce 40-series part with Ada Lovelace architecture, 60 RT cores, and 240 tensor cores. That makes it suited for ray-traced workloads, DLSS-style tensor operations, and DirectX 12 Ultimate games. The Tesla M40 has no RT cores and no tensor cores — it is purely a rasterization and compute card. For scientific computing that relies on FP32 throughput, the RTX 4070 Ti delivers 40.09 TFLOPS versus the M40's 6.832 TFLOPS, which is a 5.9x difference. For any modern gaming or interactive 3D work, the RTX 4070 Ti's 208.8 GPixel/s pixel rate and 626.4 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the M40's 106.8 GPixel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s.

The M40's only practical niche is as a headless compute accelerator in a server where you need 12 GB of VRAM and a 384-bit memory bus, and where the software stack is locked to Maxwell-era features. But even then, the RTX 4070 Ti matches the 12 GB VRAM capacity with GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus, achieving 504.2 GB/s bandwidth versus the M40's 288.4 GB/s. There is no benchmark where the M40 wins, so the "win" for the M40 is purely in legacy compatibility and physical form factor.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 4070 Ti is built on TSMC's 5 nm process with the AD104 chip, housing 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². The Tesla M40 uses TSMC's 28 nm process with the GM200 chip, containing 8,000 million transistors on a much larger 601 mm² die — a density of just 13.3 million per mm². The process node difference is generational: Ada Lovelace (the RTX 4070 Ti's architecture) is a modern design, while Maxwell 2.0 (the M40's architecture) dates from 2015.

The shading units tell the story of the performance gap. The RTX 4070 Ti has 7,680 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The M40 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Despite having fewer ROPs, the RTX 4070 Ti achieves a higher pixel rate (208.8 GPixel/s vs 106.8 GPixel/s) because of its much higher clocks: 2310 MHz base and 2610 MHz boost versus the M40's 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. The RTX 4070 Ti also has 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores — the M40 has neither, meaning no ray tracing and no tensor-accelerated AI workloads.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The RTX 4070 Ti uses 12 GB of GDDR6X at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective) on a 192-bit bus, yielding 504.2 GB/s. The M40 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s. The wider bus gives the M40 more physical memory channels, but the GDDR6X speed advantage of the RTX 4070 Ti more than compensates. The RTX 4070 Ti supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the M40 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Both cards are dual-slot, but the RTX 4070 Ti requires a 1x 16-pin power connector while the M40 uses an 8-pin EPS connector. Both have a suggested PSU of 600 W.

API support also differs: the RTX 4070 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the M40 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) with the same Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4070 Ti has display outputs; the M40 has none. The RTX 4070 Ti's FP16 throughput is 40.09 TFLOPS (1:1 with FP32), while the M40 has no FP16 capability listed. Production status is end-of-life for both, with the RTX 4070 Ti released in January 2023 and the M40 in November 2015.

FAQ

Q: Is the RTX 4070 Ti worth the extra power draw?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti consumes 285 W versus the M40's 250 W — a difference of 35 W. For that, you get a 351.5% lead in OpenCL and a 379.4% lead in Vulkan. The additional power is trivially small compared to the performance gain.

Q: Can the Tesla M40 output video to a display?

A: No. The M40 has no display outputs. The RTX 4070 Ti has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. If you need visual output, the M40 is not an option.

Q: Which card is better for ray tracing?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti has 60 dedicated RT cores. The M40 has no RT cores at all. The RTX 4070 Ti is the only one capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 12 GB. But the RTX 4070 Ti uses GDDR6X with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the M40 uses GDDR5 with 288.4 GB/s. The RTX 4070 Ti has 74.8% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better driver support for modern games?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The M40 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4070 Ti is from the GeForce 40-series with a successor in the GeForce 50-series, while the M40's generation is Tesla Maxwell with a Tesla Pascal successor.

Q: Is the M40 better for compute because of its wider memory bus?

A: No. Despite a 384-bit bus versus the RTX 4070 Ti's 192-bit bus, the M40's bandwidth is 288.4 GB/s versus 504.2 GB/s. The RTX 4070 Ti also has 5.9x the FP32 throughput (40.09 TFLOPS vs 6.832 TFLOPS).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two comparative benchmarks available are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the RTX 4070 Ti wins both by an enormous margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4070 Ti scores 176,953 against the M40's 39,192. That is a delta of 351.5% — the RTX 4070 Ti is roughly 4.5 times faster. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 4070 Ti scores 213,808 against 44,602, a delta of 379.4% — nearly 4.8 times faster. These are not marginal wins; they represent a complete generational leap.

To put the RTX 4070 Ti's OpenCL score in context, its average benchmark score of 44,795 places it 0.8% behind the RTX 5090 Mobile (45,152) and 1.3% behind the Radeon Pro 5500 XT (45,384). It is 1.6% ahead of the RTX A6000 (44,075) and 1.7% ahead of the Intel Arc A730M (45,592 — wait, that is odd, the Arc is higher, but the deltaPct is -1.7 meaning the RTX 4070 Ti is 1.7% behind the Arc). Regardless, the RTX 4070 Ti sits in the 84th percentile of all GPUs. The M40's average score of 41,897 puts it 0.5% ahead of the Tesla M40 24 GB (41,707) and 1.7% ahead of the RTX 3080 Ti (41,187), but 1.9% behind the Radeon RX 7650 GRE (42,723) and 2.5% ahead of the Radeon Pro 5300 (40,870). The M40 sits in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs — only one percentile lower than the RTX 4070 Ti, which shows the percentile metric is not sensitive to the massive absolute difference in these two specific tests.

The deltaPct values in the head-to-head table are the definitive numbers. The RTX 4070 Ti's Vulkan advantage (379.4%) is even larger than its OpenCL advantage (351.5%), suggesting the Ada Lovelace architecture scales better with Vulkan's modern API features. The M40's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, released in 2015, simply cannot keep up with any workload that uses contemporary APIs. In single-sentence verdict: the RTX 4070 Ti is not just better — it is in a different performance universe, and the benchmark data shows no scenario where the M40 comes close.

Specification Differences

Process node: RTX 4070 Ti uses 5 nm (TSMC); M40 uses 28 nm (TSMC).

Transistors: RTX 4070 Ti has 35,800 million; M40 has 8,000 million.

Die size: RTX 4070 Ti is 294 mm²; M40 is 601 mm².

Transistor density: 121.8M/mm² versus 13.3M/mm².

Base clock: 2310 MHz versus 948 MHz.

Boost clock: 2610 MHz versus 1112 MHz.

Memory type: GDDR6X versus GDDR5.

Memory bus width: 192-bit versus 384-bit.

Memory bandwidth: 504.2 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s.

Shading units: 7,680 versus 3,072.

TMUs: 240 versus 192.

ROPs: 80 versus 96.

RT cores: 60 versus none.

Tensor cores: 240 versus none.

Pixel rate: 208.8 GPixel/s versus 106.8 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: 626.4 GTexel/s versus 213.5 GTexel/s.

FP32: 40.09 TFLOPS versus 6.832 TFLOPS.

FP16: 40.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus not listed.

TDP: 285 W versus 250 W.

Power connectors: 1x 16-pin versus 8-pin EPS.

Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus no outputs.

DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1).

Vulkan: Both 1.4.

OpenGL: Both 4.6.

Length: 285 mm versus 267 mm.

Release date: 2023-01-02 versus 2015-11-09.

Predecessor: GeForce 30 versus Tesla Kepler.

Successor: GeForce 50 versus Tesla Pascal.

Launch MSRP: 799 USD versus none listed.