NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile and the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB represent two vastly different eras of NVIDIA GPU design, and the benchmark data confirms a generational chasm in compute capability. Across the two shared head-to-head benchmarks, the RTX 4090 Mobile dominates decisively, while the Tesla M40 24 GB retains relevance only in its specific compute-oriented features and larger memory pool. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the mobile Ada Lovelace part delivering between 271% and 383% higher raw scores than the Maxwell-based accelerator.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking difference emerges in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the RTX 4090 Mobile scores 180,831 against the Tesla M40's 37,439. This represents a 383% advantage for the mobile part, indicating that the Ada Lovelace architecture's compute throughput is nearly five times higher in this workload. The RTX 4090 Mobile's FP32 performance of 32.98 TFLOPS compared to the Tesla M40's 6.832 TFLOPS provides the raw mathematical foundation for this gap, though the benchmark result suggests efficiency gains beyond raw specification differences.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the margin narrows slightly but remains overwhelming. The RTX 4090 Mobile posts 170,774 points versus the Tesla M40's 45,975, a 271.4% difference. This smaller delta in Vulkan compared to OpenCL is notable, as it suggests the Maxwell architecture handles the Vulkan API relatively better than OpenCL, yet it still cannot close the fundamental performance chasm. The RTX 4090 Mobile's 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Tesla M40, likely contribute to this sustained advantage in modern graphics workloads.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy, with the RTX 4090 Mobile averaging 43,667 across all tests compared to the Tesla M40's 41,707. However, this aggregate figure masks the true performance distribution, as the Tesla M40 only has two benchmark entries in the data set while the RTX 4090 Mobile has nine. The RTX 4090 Mobile's percentile ranking of 84 versus the Tesla M40's 83 places both in the upper echelon of all GPUs, but the mobile part achieves this with a 120 W TDP compared to the Tesla's 250 W, demonstrating exceptional efficiency.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4090 Mobile in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile scores 180,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 383% higher than the Tesla M40's 37,439. This represents the largest performance gap between the two cards in any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 win in any benchmark category?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the RTX 4090 Mobile winning both shared benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan). The Tesla M40's winsA count is 0, while the RTX 4090 Mobile has 2 wins.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Tesla M40 24 GB has 24 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is 8 GB more than the RTX 4090 Mobile's 16 GB of GDDR6. However, the RTX 4090 Mobile has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s for the Tesla.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile achieves 170,774 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 271.4% higher than the Tesla M40's 45,975. The mobile part's modern architecture provides substantial advantages in this API.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in their production status?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile is listed as Active production, while the Tesla M40 24 GB is End-of-life. The Tesla was released in 2015, while the RTX 4090 Mobile launched in 2023.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is profound. The RTX 4090 Mobile uses the AD103 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the Tesla M40 24 GB uses the GM200 chip on a 28 nm process, containing only 8,000 million transistors across a larger 601 mm² die, resulting in just 13.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The RTX 4090 Mobile therefore achieves nearly ten times higher transistor density.

The Ada Lovelace architecture brings dedicated hardware that Maxwell 2.0 completely lacks. The RTX 4090 Mobile features 76 RT cores for ray tracing and 304 tensor cores for AI acceleration, while the Tesla M40 has no such units. This fundamentally changes what workloads each GPU can handle, with the RTX 4090 Mobile capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor operations that the Tesla M40 cannot perform at all.

Compute capabilities diverge sharply as well. The RTX 4090 Mobile delivers 32.98 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and matches this with 32.98 TFLOPS of FP16, while the Tesla M40 provides only 6.832 TFLOPS of FP32 and no listed FP16 support. The RTX 4090 Mobile also achieves a pixel rate of 189.8 GPixel/s and texture rate of 515.3 GTexel/s, dwarfing the Tesla M40's 106.8 GPixel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s respectively.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is memory configuration. The Tesla M40 24 GB offers 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the RTX 4090 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. Despite having less capacity, the RTX 4090 Mobile achieves 576.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the Tesla's 288.4 GB/s, doubling the memory throughput.

Clock speeds favor the RTX 4090 Mobile substantially. The mobile part runs at 1335 MHz base and 1695 MHz boost, while the Tesla M40 operates at 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the RTX 4090 Mobile using 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) compared to the Tesla's 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

The compute unit counts show the RTX 4090 Mobile's overwhelming advantage: 9728 shading units versus 3072, 304 TMUs versus 192, and 112 ROPs versus 96. Power consumption reverses this trend, with the Tesla M40 drawing 250 W compared to the RTX 4090 Mobile's 120 W. The Tesla requires an 8-pin EPS power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU, while the RTX 4090 Mobile has no power connectors as an IGP part. The Tesla is dual-slot and 267 mm long with no display outputs, while the RTX 4090 Mobile is IGP with portable device dependent outputs. Bus interface differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX 4090 Mobile versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Tesla.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile for virtually any compute or graphics workload. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 271% to 383%, delivers over four times the FP32 throughput, and does so while consuming less than half the power of the Tesla M40 24 GB. The mobile part's newer architecture brings features like ray tracing and tensor cores that simply do not exist in the Maxwell-based Tesla.

The Tesla M40 24 GB's only advantages are its larger 24 GB memory capacity and its status as a legacy compute card with no display outputs, which may suit specific server deployments. However, its 288.4 GB/s bandwidth is only half that of the RTX 4090 Mobile, undermining the utility of the extra memory. With a 83rd percentile ranking versus the RTX 4090 Mobile's 84th, the Tesla sits just below its rival in overall standing among all GPUs.

For modern workloads requiring DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, or any AI acceleration, the RTX 4090 Mobile is the only viable choice. The Tesla M40's DirectX 12 (12_1) support and lack of tensor cores make it obsolete for contemporary applications. The RTX 4090 Mobile's production status of Active versus the Tesla's End-of-life further cements this conclusion.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile wins in every measured performance category. Its 383% OpenCL advantage makes it the clear choice for general compute tasks, while its 271.4% Vulkan lead ensures superiority in modern graphics APIs. The mobile part's 76 RT cores enable hardware ray tracing that the Tesla M40 cannot perform, and its 304 tensor cores unlock AI workloads that are impossible on the Maxwell architecture. For gaming, content creation, or any interactive graphics work, the RTX 4090 Mobile is categorically superior.

The Tesla M40 24 GB's winning scenario is narrowly defined by memory capacity. Its 24 GB frame buffer exceeds the RTX 4090 Mobile's 16 GB, which could matter for workloads that require storing very large datasets on the GPU but do not demand high bandwidth. Its dual-slot form factor and 8-pin EPS power connector suggest server installation, and its lack of display outputs confirms its compute-only purpose. However, even in memory-bound scenarios, the Tesla's lower bandwidth and dramatically lower compute throughput mean it would only be preferable in cases where the RTX 4090 Mobile's 16 GB capacity is genuinely insufficient and the workload tolerates the Tesla's slower processing. Given the Tesla's End-of-life status and the RTX 4090 Mobile's Active production, the data supports choosing the mobile part in virtually all circumstances.