GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K40m and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 are both built on the same GK110B Kepler silicon, yet they are positioned for entirely different professional workloads. The data in the benchmark results shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Tesla K40m taking the single available head-to-head benchmark victory, but the specifications reveal a more nuanced story about memory capacity, power consumption, and feature sets that define their respective use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K40m wins the only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the data. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K40m scores 19,885 against the K5200’s 19,024, a 4.5% advantage. This margin is consistent with the K40m’s raw compute specifications: it carries 2,880 shading units and 240 texture mapping units, compared to 2,304 and 192 on the K5200. The K40m also reaches a higher boost clock of 876 MHz versus 771 MHz, which translates to 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 performance against the K5200’s 3.553 TFLOPS. Simply put, the K40m is the faster compute engine.

The K5200, however, wins in areas that do not show up in a single OpenCL score. Its memory configuration is significantly different: 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivers 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the K40m uses 12 GB on a 384-bit bus for 288.4 GB/s. The K5200’s memory is smaller and slower, but it is paired with a much lower power envelope, 150 W TDP against the K40m’s 245 W. The K5200 also offers display outputs (2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2) while the K40m has no display outputs at all. This makes the K5200 the only one of the two that can drive a monitor directly, which is a decisive advantage for interactive workstation use. The K5200 also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 20,180, a test the K40m did not run, indicating that the Quadro is designed for modern API workloads beyond the scope of the OpenCL comparison.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: GK110B chip, Kepler generation, manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process. Each die contains 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The architectural lineage is identical, but NVIDIA configured the silicon differently for each product.

The K40m is the larger, more fully enabled configuration. It uses all 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The K5200 disables a portion of the chip, leaving 2,304 shading units and 192 TMUs active, while retaining the same 48 ROPs. This explains the K40m’s higher pixel rate of 52.56 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s on the K5200, and its texture rate of 210.2 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds differ as well. The K40m runs at a base of 745 MHz and boosts to 876 MHz, while the K5200 runs lower at 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. Memory clocks are identical at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), but the bus widths differ: 384-bit on the K40m and 256-bit on the K5200. This is the primary driver of the bandwidth gap. The K40m’s higher clocks and wider bus come at a cost, its TDP is 245 W compared to 150 W, and it requires a 550 W suggested PSU versus 450 W for the K5200. Both are dual-slot cards with identical 267 mm lengths, but only the K5200 has a power connector listed (1x 6-pin) and a height specification (111 mm).

The K40m is the older product, released on 2013-11-21, with the K5200 following on 2014-07-21. Both are end-of-life. The K40m had a launch MSRP of 7,699 USD; the K5200 does not have a listed launch price. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, and neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The K40m’s predecessor is Tesla Fermi and its successor is Tesla Maxwell; the K5200’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and successor is Quadro Maxwell.

The Verdict

Pick the Tesla K40m if your workload is pure compute and you have the power budget. The data shows it is 4.5% faster than the K5200 in OpenCL, and its specification advantages are substantial: 25% more shading units, 25% more TMUs, 50% more memory bandwidth, and 42% higher FP32 throughput. The 12 GB frame buffer is also 50% larger than the K5200’s 8 GB, which matters for large datasets that must reside in GPU memory. The K40m is the clear choice for headless compute nodes, scientific simulation, or any task that does not require a display output.

Pick the Quadro K5200 if you need a display. The K40m has no outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor. The K5200’s 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it a functional workstation card. Its lower 150 W TDP and 450 W suggested PSU also make it easier to integrate into an existing system without upgrading the power supply. The K5200’s Vulkan score of 20,180 suggests it handles modern API workloads well, even if its OpenCL score trails the K40m. For interactive 3D modeling, CAD, or content creation where you need to see your work, the K5200 is the only viable option between these two.

There is no scenario where the K5200 outperforms the K40m in raw compute. The numbers are unequivocal: the K40m wins the only head-to-head test and leads in every compute-oriented specification. But compute performance is not the only metric. The K5200’s display outputs and lower power draw give it a distinct role that the K40m cannot fill.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The Tesla K40m scores 19,885 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 4.5% higher than the K5200’s 19,024. The K40m also leads in FP32 performance at 5.046 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS.

Q: Does either card support Vulkan?

A: Both list Vulkan 1.2.175 API support. The K5200 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 20,180, while the K40m has no Vulkan benchmark score in the data.

Q: Can I connect a monitor to either card?

A: Only the Quadro K5200 has display outputs: 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Tesla K40m has no display outputs and cannot drive a monitor.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Tesla K40m has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card requires more power?

A: The Tesla K40m has a 245 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU. The Quadro K5200 has a 150 W TDP and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: Are these cards the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GK110B chip with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The K40m uses more of the chip’s resources (2,880 shading units) than the K5200 (2,304 shading units).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a clear win for the Tesla K40m. The K40m scores 19,885 against the K5200’s 19,024, a delta of 4.5%. This is not a marginal difference; it is consistent with the underlying hardware. The K40m has 2,880 shading units operating at a boost clock of 876 MHz, while the K5200 has 2,304 shading units at 771 MHz. The K40m’s memory bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s is exactly 50% higher than the K5200’s 192.3 GB/s, which directly benefits memory-bound OpenCL workloads. In texture-heavy tasks, the K40m’s 210.2 GTexel/s versus the K5200’s 148.0 GTexel/s gives it a 42% advantage.

The K5200’s win comes from a different benchmark category. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 20,180 is higher than its own OpenCL score of 19,024, and there is no Vulkan score recorded for the K40m. This suggests the K5200 is more optimized for Vulkan compute or graphics workloads, but without a K40m Vulkan score, no direct comparison is possible. The K5200 also has a smaller memory footprint, 8 GB versus 12 GB, but it uses that memory more efficiently in terms of power, with a 150 W TDP versus 245 W. The practical takeaway is that the K40m wins raw throughput, while the K5200 wins on efficiency and feature completeness.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification except the chip itself. Both use the GK110B die with 7,080 million transistors on 561 mm², but the K40m is configured with more active units. The K40m has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs; the K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and the same 48 ROPs. Clock speeds also diverge: the K40m runs at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost, while the K5200 runs at 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. Memory speed is identical at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), but the bus width differs, 384-bit on the K40m versus 256-bit on the K5200, producing bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s. Memory capacity is 12 GB versus 8 GB. The K40m delivers 5.046 TFLOPS FP32, 52.56 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 210.2 GTexel/s texture rate; the K5200 delivers 3.553 TFLOPS, 37.01 GPixel/s, and 148.0 GTexel/s. Power is a major differentiator: the K40m draws 245 W with a 550 W suggested PSU, while the K5200 draws 150 W with a 450 W suggested PSU and uses a 1x 6-pin power connector. The K40m has no display outputs; the K5200 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The K40m is longer at 267 mm with no listed height, while the K5200 is also 267 mm long but has a listed height of 111 mm. Both are dual-slot cards with PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces. The K40m released on 2013-11-21 with a launch MSRP of 7,699 USD; the K5200 released on 2014-07-21 with no listed launch MSRP. The K40m’s API support includes DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, which is identical to the K5200.