NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile and the NVIDIA Tesla M40 represent two drastically different eras of GPU design, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a generational chasm: the RTX 4090 Mobile dominates every shared benchmark, yet the Tesla M40 still holds its own in the overall percentile rankings, suggesting its legacy compute strengths remain relevant. This comparison is not about a close contest but about understanding how far mobile flagship silicon has outpaced a once-powerful datacenter workhorse.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the RTX 4090 Mobile wins every single head-to-head test, with no contest in either OpenCL or Vulkan workloads. The GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 180,831, which is a 361.4% improvement over the Tesla M40’s 39,192. Similarly, in Geekbench Vulkan, the mobile chip scores 170,774 versus the Tesla’s 44,602, a 282.9% delta. There is no workload category where the Tesla M40 emerges victorious; its wins column is zero.

However, the Tesla M40’s strength lies not in winning but in maintaining relevance. Its percentile ranking of 83rd among all GPUs is remarkably close to the RTX 4090 Mobile’s 84th percentile. This suggests that while the absolute scores are far apart, the Tesla M40 still outperforms a significant majority of other GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 41,897 places it within striking distance of cards like the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (41,187), which is a modern enthusiast part. The RTX 4090 Mobile, conversely, uses its 43,667 average score to sit just above rivals like the RTX A6000 (44,075, a -0.9% delta) and the Quadro M6000 (43,301, +0.8% delta).

The use-case split is therefore clear: the RTX 4090 Mobile is the absolute performance leader for any task that leverages modern APIs like Vulkan or OpenCL, delivering several-fold faster results. The Tesla M40, despite its age, remains a viable option purely on its percentile standing, indicating it still outclasses many newer lower-end cards in raw compute throughput.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is the primary driver of their performance disparity. The RTX 4090 Mobile is built on TSMC’s 5 nm process node, while the Tesla M40 uses a 28 nm node. This is a massive difference in manufacturing technology, allowing the newer chip to pack 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, resulting in a density of 121.1M transistors per mm². The Tesla M40’s GM200 chip contains only 8,000 million transistors on a much larger 601 mm² die, yielding a density of just 13.3M per mm².

The RTX 4090 Mobile employs the Ada Lovelace architecture, which brings modern features like 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores. The Tesla M40, based on Maxwell 2.0, has no RT cores and no tensor cores at all. This makes the newer GPU fundamentally capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads, which the older card cannot handle. The shading unit count also tells a story: the RTX 4090 Mobile has 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, whereas the Tesla M40 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs.

Memory subsystems differ significantly as well. The RTX 4090 Mobile uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla M40 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 288.4 GB/s. The clock speeds also reflect the architectural efficiency: the RTX 4090 Mobile runs at a base of 1335 MHz and boosts to 1695 MHz, while the Tesla M40 operates at 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. The power envelope is starkly different, with the mobile part rated at 120 W TDP versus the Tesla’s 250 W, showcasing how process improvements enabled higher performance at lower power draw.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion for most users: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile is the superior choice in every measurable benchmark category. Its Geekbench scores are nearly five times higher in OpenCL and nearly four times higher in Vulkan. The architecture is modern, with support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Tesla’s DirectX 12 (12_1), and it includes dedicated RT and tensor cores. The RTX 4090 Mobile also offers more memory bandwidth, a higher pixel rate (189.8 GPixel/s vs 106.8 GPixel/s), and a higher texture rate (515.3 GTexel/s vs 213.5 GTexel/s). Its FP32 compute of 32.98 TFLOPS dwarfs the Tesla’s 6.832 TFLOPS.

The Tesla M40’s only argument is its legacy status. It is an end-of-life product with no display outputs, meaning it was designed strictly for datacenter compute, not desktop or mobile use. Its 83rd percentile shows it still outranks many modern GPUs, and its average score of 41,897 is only 1.7% behind the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti. For a hypothetical user with a strict PCIe 3.0 system and a need for raw FP32 compute without modern API requirements, the Tesla M40 might still function, but the benchmark data shows no scenario where it wins. The RTX 4090 Mobile is the definitive answer for anyone seeking maximum performance in a portable form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile scores 180,831, which is 361.4% higher than the Tesla M40’s 39,192.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Tesla M40 has no RT cores, while the RTX 4090 Mobile includes 76 RT cores.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile delivers 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 16 GB of GDDR6, while the Tesla M40 offers 288.4 GB/s from 12 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile uses a 5 nm process, whereas the Tesla M40 uses a 28 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile is in the 84th percentile, while the Tesla M40 is in the 83rd percentile.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 have any display outputs?

A: No, the Tesla M40 has no display outputs, unlike the RTX 4090 Mobile which has portable-device-dependent outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data includes only two benchmarks, but both show overwhelming dominance by the RTX 4090 Mobile. In Geekbench OpenCL, the mobile GPU scores 180,831 against the Tesla M40’s 39,192. This delta of 361.4% is the largest margin in the comparison, indicating that the newer architecture excels massively in general-purpose compute tasks. The Vulkan test is similarly lopsided: 170,774 for the RTX 4090 Mobile versus 44,602 for the Tesla M40, a 282.9% advantage. These results reflect the fundamental improvements in shader throughput, memory bandwidth, and driver optimization for modern APIs.

The RTX 4090 Mobile’s FP32 compute of 32.98 TFLOPS is exactly 4.8 times the Tesla’s 6.832 TFLOPS, which aligns with the observed benchmark deltas. The pixel rate difference is also stark: 189.8 GPixel/s versus 106.8 GPixel/s, a 77.7% advantage for the newer card. Texture rate shows an even bigger gap, with 515.3 GTexel/s versus 213.5 GTexel/s, a 141.3% difference. These raw specifications explain why the RTX 4090 Mobile wins every test, as its fundamental execution units are operating at far higher throughput levels.

Notably, the head-to-head section lists only two tests because the Tesla M40 lacks results for the Passmark suite and other benchmarks. This absence of data itself is telling: the Tesla M40 was not tested on DirectX 10, 11, 12, or 9, nor on G2D or G3D, likely due to its compute-only design with no display outputs. The RTX 4090 Mobile has scores for all these tests, including a Passmark G3D score of 27,212 and a GPU Compute score of 12,347, demonstrating its versatility as a complete graphics solution rather than a pure compute accelerator.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between these two GPUs are extensive, reflecting their distinct generations and purposes. The process node is a critical divergence: 5 nm for the RTX 4090 Mobile versus 28 nm for the Tesla M40. Transistor counts follow suit, with the mobile chip containing 45,900 million versus 8,000 million. Die size is actually larger on the older card (601 mm² vs 379 mm²), but the transistor density is nine times higher on the newer part (121.1M/mm² vs 13.3M/mm²).

Memory configurations differ in capacity, type, and bandwidth. The RTX 4090 Mobile uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit interface, while the Tesla M40 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. Bandwidth is nearly double on the new card: 576.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s. The memory clock also differs, with the RTX 4090 Mobile running at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus the Tesla’s 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Core configurations show massive scaling differences. The RTX 4090 Mobile has 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, while the Tesla M40 has 3,072, 192, and 96 respectively. The RTX 4090 Mobile adds 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores; the Tesla has none. Power draw is another major split: the RTX 4090 Mobile is rated at 120 W TDP and uses no power connectors, fitting an IGP form factor, whereas the Tesla M40 requires a dual-slot design with an 8-pin EPS connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The bus interface also differs, with the newer card using PCIe 4.0 x16 versus the older card’s PCIe 3.0 x16.