NVIDIA P102-100 vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records a clear and consistent advantage for the NVIDIA P102-100 across both recorded test suites. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P102-100 scores 49,602 points, while the Tesla M40 trails at 39,192 points. This represents a 26.6% lead for the mining-oriented Pascal card. The gap widens substantially in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the P102-100 reaches 67,454 points against the M40's 44,602 points, a 51.2% difference. The data shows the P102-100 winning both head-to-head matchups, with a combined 2-0 record.

These deltas are not marginal. The Vulkan result is particularly striking, showing the P102-100 delivering more than half again as much performance as the Maxwell card. The OpenCL gap, while smaller, is still decisive at over a quarter faster. For context, the P102-100's average benchmark score of 58,528 places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Tesla M40's 41,897 average sits in the 83rd percentile. The percentile difference of five points understates the raw score gap, which is roughly 40% overall. Looking at the nearest rivals, the P102-100's average sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT and within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon PRO V710, showing it competes with much newer hardware. The Tesla M40's average is 1.7% behind the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, which is a surprisingly close margin for a card from an older generation.

Where Each One Wins

The P102-100 wins every recorded benchmark category, but the nature of those wins suggests specific strengths. In Vulkan workloads, the 51.2% advantage indicates that the Pascal architecture's newer instruction set and driver optimizations translate into outsized gains in modern graphics APIs. The P102-100's higher clock speeds, base 1582 MHz versus 948 MHz on the M40, likely contribute to this advantage, as does its GDDR5X memory running at 11 Gbps effective versus the M40's 6 Gbps GDDR5. The texture rate difference is also notable: 336.6 GTexel/s versus 213.5 GTexel/s, a 57.7% advantage for the P102-100.

For compute workloads measured by OpenCL, the P102-100's FP32 throughput of 10.77 TFLOPS dwarfs the M40's 6.832 TFLOPS, a 57.6% theoretical advantage that the 26.6% real-world delta only partially reflects. The Tesla M40 does hold some advantages, but they do not translate into benchmark wins. Its 12 GB memory capacity is more than double the P102-100's 5 GB, and its 384-bit bus width exceeds the P102-100's 320-bit interface, though the P102-100's faster memory clocks give it 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth versus 288.4 GB/s. The M40 also has more ROPs, 96 versus 80, and a larger die at 601 mm², but these architectural advantages cannot overcome the clock speed and memory technology gaps. The data implies the M40 is better suited for capacity-bound workloads that fit within its larger frame buffer, while the P102-100 wins on raw throughput and latency-sensitive tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 records an average benchmark score of 58,528, placing it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Tesla M40 averages 41,897, placing it in the 83rd percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The P102-100 scores 67,454 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Tesla M40 scores 44,602. The P102-100 leads by 51.2%, its largest margin in any recorded test.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 have any memory capacity advantage?

A: Yes, the Tesla M40 features 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus. However, the P102-100's memory bandwidth is higher at 440.3 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two cards?

A: The P102-100 uses the GP102 chip with 11,800 million transistors on a 16 nm process, while the Tesla M40 uses the GM200 chip with 8,000 million transistors on a 28 nm process. The P102-100's smaller die, 471 mm² versus 601 mm², yields a higher transistor density of 25.1M per mm² compared to 13.3M per mm².

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The P102-100 runs at a base clock of 1582 MHz and a boost clock of 1683 MHz. The Tesla M40 operates at 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. The P102-100's clocks are substantially higher across the board.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The P102-100 was released on February 11, 2018, while the Tesla M40 was released on November 9, 2015.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The P102-100 has 3200 shading units, 200 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs, while the Tesla M40 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The P102-100's clock speeds are 1582 MHz base and 1683 MHz boost, compared to the M40's 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. Memory configurations diverge sharply: the P102-100 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X with a 320-bit bus and 440.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the M40 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective) on the P102-100 versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on the M40.

The pixel rate is 134.6 GPixel/s for the P102-100 and 106.8 GPixel/s for the M40. Texture rates are 336.6 GTexel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 performance measures 10.77 TFLOPS for the P102-100 and 6.832 TFLOPS for the M40. The P102-100 supports FP16 at 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64 rate), while the M40 has no recorded FP16 capability. Power consumption is identical at 250 W TDP, with both cards requiring a 600 W power supply. The P102-100 uses two 8-pin power connectors, while the M40 uses a single 8-pin EPS connector. The bus interface differs significantly: PCIe 1.0 x4 on the P102-100 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the M40. Both cards have no display outputs and use dual-slot cooling, with identical physical dimensions of 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length.

Architecture Differences

The P102-100 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP102 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 16 nm process. The Tesla M40 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM200 chip, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 16 nm versus 28 nm, which explains the P102-100's higher transistor density despite its smaller die. The P102-100 packs 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, yielding 25.1M transistors per square millimeter. The M40's 8,000 million transistors spread across a larger 601 mm² die produce a density of only 13.3M per square millimeter.

The P102-100 belongs to the "Mining GPUs" generation, while the M40 is part of the "Tesla Maxwell (Mxx)" generation. The M40 has a recorded predecessor, Tesla Kepler, and a successor, Tesla Pascal, while the P102-100 has neither in the database. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The P102-100's Pascal architecture introduces a 1:64 FP16 ratio, which the Maxwell 2.0 architecture lacks entirely. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The M40's larger ROP count, 96 versus 80, suggests a theoretical advantage in pixel-bound workloads, but the P102-100's higher pixel rate of 134.6 GPixel/s versus 106.8 GPixel/s indicates that clock speed overcomes the ROP deficit in practice.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the NVIDIA P102-100 for anyone prioritizing raw benchmark performance. It wins both recorded tests, with a 26.6% advantage in OpenCL and a 51.2% advantage in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 58,528 ranks in the 88th percentile, and it sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT, a much newer card. The P102-100's higher clock speeds, faster memory technology, and greater FP32 throughput make it the superior choice for compute-heavy and graphics-API workloads.

The Tesla M40 remains relevant only for scenarios that require its 12 GB memory capacity, which is more than double the P102-100's 5 GB. Its 384-bit bus and larger ROP count are architectural advantages, but they do not translate into benchmark wins. The M40's 83rd percentile ranking and proximity to the RTX 3080 Ti (within 1.7%) show it is still competitive in its niche, but the P102-100 outperforms it across every metric recorded in the database. For users with workloads that fit within 5 GB, the P102-100 is the clear pick. For memory-bound tasks that need 12 GB, the M40 has a capacity advantage that the P102-100 cannot match, though at the cost of significantly lower throughput. The record shows no benchmark category where the M40 wins, so the verdict follows the data: the P102-100 is the stronger card in almost every measurable way, with the M40's only edge being its larger frame buffer.