NVIDIA Quadro M6000 vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB are both built on the same GM200 chip and Maxwell 2.0 architecture, yet they serve distinct roles in a workstation environment. The benchmark data shows a clear, if narrow, performance hierarchy, with the Quadro M6000 taking a 2-0 win record in the head-to-head tests. However, the Tesla M40 24 GB counters with twice the memory capacity, making the choice between them dependent on workload requirements rather than raw compute alone.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two cards is defined by two Geekbench tests, and the Quadro M6000 wins both. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M6000 scores 39,688 against the Tesla M40 24 GB’s 37,439, a 6% advantage. This is the larger margin of the two tests, and it reflects the Quadro’s higher clock speeds in general compute workloads. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a closer race: the Quadro M6000 scores 46,913, while the Tesla M40 24 GB scores 45,975, resulting in a 2% lead for the Quadro. These results align with the average benchmark scores, where the Quadro M6000 averages 43,301 compared to the Tesla M40 24 GB’s 41,707, placing the Quadro at the 84th percentile of all GPUs versus the Tesla’s 83rd.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context for these scores. The Quadro M6000’s average score of 43,301 puts it virtually tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268, 0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262, 0.1% delta), and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223, 0.2% delta). It sits just behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile, which scores 43,667, a -0.8% delta. The Tesla M40 24 GB, with its 41,707 average, is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (41,187) and 2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (40,870), but trails the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE (42,723) by -2.4%. These deltas show that while the Quadro wins the head-to-head, both cards sit in a competitive performance band where the differences are often within a few percentage points of modern consumer and professional parts.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share a fundamental architecture, both using the GM200 chip on the 28 nm process node manufactured by TSMC. They both pack 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.3M per mm². The shading unit count is identical at 3,072, with 192 texture mapping units and 96 render output units on each card. Pixel and texture rates are nearly identical: the Quadro M6000 achieves 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s, while the Tesla M40 24 GB achieves 106.8 GPixel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is also essentially equal, with the Quadro M6000 at 6.844 TFLOPS and the Tesla M40 24 GB at 6.832 TFLOPS.

The core distinction lies in clock speeds and memory configuration. The Quadro M6000 runs a base clock of 988 MHz with a boost of 1114 MHz, while the Tesla M40 24 GB runs a lower base of 948 MHz and a boost of 1112 MHz. This clock advantage explains the Quadro’s benchmark lead. Memory is where the Tesla pulls ahead: it offers 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the Quadro M6000 offers only 12 GB of GDDR5 on the same 384-bit bus. However, the Quadro’s memory runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) versus the Tesla’s 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), giving the Quadro a higher bandwidth of 317.4 GB/s compared to the Tesla’s 288.4 GB/s. This means the Tesla M40 24 GB sacrifices bandwidth for capacity, a trade-off that favors large datasets over speed.

Both cards are dual-slot designs with a 250 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 600 W. They both use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces and support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The physical dimensions are identical at 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length. The critical difference in features is the display outputs: the Quadro M6000 includes 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Tesla M40 24 GB has no outputs at all, marking it as a pure compute accelerator. Power connectors also differ, with the Quadro using a 1x 8-pin and the Tesla using an 8-pin EPS connector. The Quadro M6000 was released on 2015-03-20, while the Tesla M40 24 GB followed on 2015-11-09.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M6000 wins in every benchmark category measured, but its victories are narrow. The 6% lead in OpenCL suggests it handles general-purpose compute tasks with a slight edge, likely due to its higher base and boost clocks. The 2% lead in Vulkan indicates a smaller advantage in graphics-oriented API workloads. For users who need a display output, the Quadro M6000 is the only viable option of the two, as it provides 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 connectors. The Quadro’s higher memory bandwidth of 317.4 GB/s also gives it an edge in scenarios where data throughput is more important than capacity, such as high-resolution texture streaming or real-time rendering.

The Tesla M40 24 GB’s win is not in benchmarks but in capacity. With 24 GB of GDDR5, it offers exactly twice the memory of the Quadro M6000. This makes it the superior choice for workloads that require loading large models or datasets that exceed 12 GB. The Tesla’s lower bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s is a trade-off, but for tasks like machine learning inference, scientific simulations, or large-scale data processing where memory footprint is the bottleneck, the extra capacity is more valuable than the bandwidth difference. However, the Tesla has no display outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor directly; it is designed for headless compute in server or rack environments.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. For a workstation that needs both compute performance and display capability, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is the better choice. It wins both benchmark tests, offers higher clock speeds, and includes display outputs. Its 6% OpenCL lead and 2% Vulkan lead are modest, but they are consistent wins. The Quadro’s higher memory bandwidth also makes it more responsive for interactive workloads. Its 84th percentile ranking versus the Tesla’s 83rd reinforces its slight overall performance edge.

For a server or compute-focused deployment where display output is irrelevant, the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB is the more compelling option despite losing the benchmarks. The 24 GB memory capacity is a decisive feature for large-scale compute tasks, and the 2% to 6% performance deficit is a small price to pay for doubling the memory. The Tesla’s lower base clock of 948 MHz versus the Quadro’s 988 MHz does not change the fact that it can hold larger datasets in memory, avoiding the need for constant data swapping. The Tesla M40 24 GB is also positioned closer to its rivals in the average score ranking, sitting 1.3% ahead of the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, while the Quadro is virtually tied with several modern cards.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 has an average benchmark score of 43,301, which is higher than the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB’s 41,707.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro M6000 scores 39,688 compared to the Tesla M40 24 GB’s 37,439, giving the Quadro a 6% lead.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 24 GB have any advantage over the Quadro M6000?

A: Yes, the Tesla M40 24 GB has 24 GB of memory, which is twice the Quadro M6000’s 12 GB, though it has lower bandwidth at 288.4 GB/s versus 317.4 GB/s.

Q: Are the GPU architectures the same between the two cards?

A: Yes, both cards use the GM200 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, with 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die and identical shading unit counts of 3,072.

Q: Can the Tesla M40 24 GB be used for display output?

A: No, the Tesla M40 24 GB has no display outputs, while the Quadro M6000 includes 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: What is the TDP for both cards?

A: Both the Quadro M6000 and the Tesla M40 24 GB have a TDP of 250 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W.