NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance difference between the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 and the NVIDIA Tesla M40?

A: The RTX 5080 has an average benchmark score of 56,083, while the Tesla M40 scores 41,897. In the database’s head-to-head tests, the RTX 5080 wins both recorded benchmarks, with a 501.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 472.7% lead in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Which card has the higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RTX 5080 sits in the 87th percentile, while the Tesla M40 is in the 83rd percentile. This places both in the upper tier, but the RTX 5080 is noticeably closer to the top of the database’s overall distribution.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of closest rivals?

A: The RTX 5080’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE, which is 2.2% faster on average. The Tesla M40’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 5300, which is 2.5% slower. The RTX 5080 is 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon 8060S and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, while the Tesla M40 is 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti and 0.5% ahead of the Tesla M40 24 GB.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RTX 5080 has 16 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla M40 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s. The RTX 5080 has more capacity and over three times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports hardware ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: Only the RTX 5080 includes dedicated RT cores (84) and tensor cores (336). The Tesla M40 has neither, as its Maxwell 2.0 architecture predates these hardware units.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The RTX 5080 is listed as Active and was released on 2025-01-29. The Tesla M40 is End-of-life, with a release date of 2015-11-09.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 5080 is built on NVIDIA’s Blackwell 2.0 architecture using the GB203 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Tesla M40 uses the older Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM200 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process node difference is a key contributor to the performance gap: the RTX 5080 packs 45,600 million transistors into a 378 mm² die, while the Tesla M40 contains 8,000 million transistors on a much larger 601 mm² die. Transistor density tells the story clearly: 120.6 million per square millimeter for the RTX 5080 versus 13.3 million per square millimeter for the Tesla M40.

The RTX 5080 has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The Tesla M40 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RTX 5080 also brings hardware that simply did not exist in the Maxwell generation: 84 RT cores for ray tracing and 336 tensor cores for AI workloads. The Tesla M40 has no such units, which historically limited it to compute tasks without acceleration for those features.

Clock speeds are substantially different as well. The RTX 5080 runs at a base of 2295 MHz and boosts to 2617 MHz. The Tesla M40 operates at 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. Even the memory clocks diverge: the RTX 5080’s GDDR7 runs at 1875 MHz with 30 Gbps effective, while the Tesla M40’s GDDR5 runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective.

The RTX 5080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Tesla M40 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 5080 also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Tesla M40 sticks with PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ completely: the RTX 5080 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b, while the Tesla M40 has no display outputs at all, as it is a compute-oriented accelerator.

Power requirements also reflect the generational shift. The RTX 5080 has a TDP of 360 W and uses a 1x 16-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 750 W. The Tesla M40 has a TDP of 250 W, uses an 8-pin EPS connector, and recommends a 600 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards, but the RTX 5080 is longer at 304 mm (12 inches) versus the Tesla M40’s 267 mm (10.5 inches).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the RTX 5080 wins both by dramatic margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 5080 scores 235,901 against the Tesla M40’s 39,192. That is a 501.9% advantage, meaning the RTX 5080 delivers roughly six times the raw compute throughput in this API. OpenCL is a common measure for general-purpose GPU compute, and the gap reflects the combined effect of newer architecture, higher clocks, more shaders, and faster memory.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 5080 scores 255,450 while the Tesla M40 scores 44,602. The delta is 472.7%, slightly smaller than the OpenCL gap but still enormous. Vulkan is increasingly used in both gaming and compute applications, and the RTX 5080’s lead here shows that the performance advantage is not limited to a single API.

The RTX 5080 also dominates in other database metrics. Its pixel rate is 293.1 GPixel/s versus 106.8 GPixel/s for the Tesla M40. Its texture rate is 879.3 GTexel/s versus 213.5 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 56.28 TFLOPS compared to 6.832 TFLOPS. The RTX 5080 even supports FP16 at 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Tesla M40 has no recorded FP16 capability.

The average benchmark score further reinforces this: 56,083 for the RTX 5080 versus 41,897 for the Tesla M40. However, note that the RTX 5080 has ten recorded benchmark entries, while the Tesla M40 has only two (both Geekbench tests). This means the average scores are not directly comparable across the full test suite, but the head-to-head results are unambiguous.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the RTX 5080’s 87th percentile puts it above the Tesla M40’s 83rd percentile. In the context of nearest rivals, the RTX 5080 is competitive with modern AMD cards: it trails the RX 9070 GRE by 2.2%, but beats the Radeon 8060S by 0.6% and the RX 6750 GRE 12 GB by 0.7%. The Tesla M40, by contrast, sits near the RTX 3080 Ti (1.7% ahead) and the Radeon Pro 5300 (2.5% ahead), which places it in a much older performance tier.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 is in a completely different performance class than the NVIDIA Tesla M40. In the only direct benchmark comparisons available, the RTX 5080 is roughly five to six times faster. Its architectural advantages are overwhelming: newer process node, higher transistor density, more than triple the shading units, dedicated RT and tensor cores, and memory bandwidth that exceeds the Tesla M40 by a factor of more than three.

The Tesla M40’s 83rd percentile ranking is respectable for a 2015-era compute card, and its position relative to the RTX 3080 Ti shows it still holds its own against some later consumer GPUs in average score. However, it lacks modern features such as ray tracing acceleration, tensor cores, and display outputs. It is also end-of-life, meaning no ongoing support or production.

For anyone needing maximum compute performance, modern API support, or any form of rendering output, the RTX 5080 is the only sensible choice. Its 87th percentile ranking and 501.9% OpenCL lead over the Tesla M40 leave no ambiguity. The Tesla M40 might still be relevant for legacy compute workloads that do not require modern features, but the recorded data shows it is vastly outclassed in every measurable way.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 | NVIDIA Tesla M40 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 45,600 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 378 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 120.6M / mm² | 13.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2295 MHz | 948 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2617 MHz | 1112 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1875 MHz (30 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR7 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 960.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10752 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 336 | 192 |

| ROPs | 112 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 84 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 336 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 293.1 GPixel/s | 106.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 879.3 GTexel/s | 213.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 56.28 TFLOPS | 6.832 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not available |

| TDP | 360 W | 250 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 8-pin EPS |

| Suggested PSU | 750 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | 304 mm (12 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2025-01-29 | 2015-11-09 |