GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and NVIDIA Tesla K40c represent two distinct eras of NVIDIA's professional GPU lineup, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear generational divide: the Quadro RTX 4000, built on the 12 nm Turing architecture, delivers a dominant performance advantage over the older 28 nm Kepler-based Tesla K40c. Both cards sit at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, but this parity in ranking masks a substantial performance gap in the only benchmark where both are measured. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and specification gaps between these two end-of-life workstation accelerators.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single overlapping benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74,540 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c manages 17,468 points. This translates to a 326.7% advantage for the Quadro RTX 4000, meaning it delivers more than four times the compute performance in this OpenCL workload. The magnitude of this delta is substantial even for a five-year generational leap, indicating that the Turing architecture's improvements go far beyond simple clock speed increases.

In terms of overall average benchmark scores, the Quadro RTX 4000 achieves 17,789 across its ten benchmark entries, while the Tesla K40c averages 17,468 from its single Geekbench OpenCL result. The Quadro RTX 4000's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (average score 17,666, a 0.7% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (average score 17,639, a 0.9% delta). The Tesla K40c's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (average score 17,509, a -0.2% delta), followed closely by the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (average score 17,551, a -0.5% delta). Notably, the Quadro RTX 4000's average benchmark score is only slightly higher than the Tesla K40c's, but this is misleading, the Quadro's average is pulled down by its low scores in Passmark DirectX tests (e.g., 52 in DirectX 12, 108 in DirectX 10), which are not representative of its OpenCL compute strength.

The head-to-head win count is 1 for the Quadro RTX 4000 and 0 for the Tesla K40c, reflecting the single shared benchmark. However, this does not capture the full picture. The Quadro RTX 4000 also posts strong results in other tests: 1,873 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 78,844 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 15,117 in Passmark G3D. The Tesla K40c has no corresponding results for these tests, so a direct comparison is impossible. The data suggests that the Quadro RTX 4000's compute-heavy architecture is well-suited to OpenCL, while its DirectX 9 score of 205 and DirectX 11 score of 128 indicate weaker legacy API performance relative to its modern capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is the clear winner in every measurable category. In OpenCL compute, it outperforms the Tesla K40c by 326.7%, making it the obvious choice for general-purpose GPU computing tasks that leverage this API. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 78,844 demonstrates strong modern API support, while the Tesla K40c has no Vulkan benchmark result listed. The Quadro RTX 4000 also excels in graphics workloads: its Passmark G3D score of 15,117 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,873 show it can handle contemporary rendering tasks, whereas the Tesla K40c lacks comparable entries.

The NVIDIA Tesla K40c's only advantage is its larger memory capacity of 12 GB compared to the Quadro RTX 4000's 8 GB. In scenarios where memory capacity is the limiting factor, such as hosting very large datasets that cannot be partitioned, the Tesla K40c could theoretically hold more data locally. However, the Quadro RTX 4000 compensates with higher memory bandwidth (416.0 GB/s vs. 288.4 GB/s) and faster effective memory speed (13 Gbps vs. 6 Gbps), so any capacity advantage is offset by a significant throughput disadvantage. The Tesla K40c also has a higher shading unit count (2,880 vs. 2,304), but this does not translate into real-world wins due to its much lower clock speeds (745 MHz base vs. 1,005 MHz base).

For modern workloads, the Quadro RTX 4000 is the only viable option. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, while the Tesla K40c is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.2.175, and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro RTX 4000 also includes hardware ray tracing cores (36) and tensor cores (288), features entirely absent from the Tesla K40c. This makes the Quadro RTX 4000 suitable for ray-traced rendering and AI inference, while the Tesla K40c is confined to legacy compute and rasterization workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses the Turing architecture with the TU104 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The Tesla K40c uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK180 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink allows the Quadro RTX 4000 to pack 13,600 million transistors into a 545 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 25.0M / mm². The Tesla K40c, by contrast, has 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, yielding a density of only 12.6M / mm². The Quadro RTX 4000's density is nearly double that of the Tesla K40c, enabling more complex compute units per square millimeter.

The Turing architecture introduces dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI workloads. The Quadro RTX 4000 features 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, which are absent from the Tesla K40c. These specialized units allow the Quadro RTX 4000 to accelerate ray-traced rendering and tensor-based operations, such as deep learning inference, at hardware speed. The Tesla K40c relies entirely on its general-purpose shading units (2,880) for all compute tasks, which is less efficient for these emerging workloads. The Quadro RTX 4000 also doubles the FP16 throughput with 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) compared to its FP32 rate of 7.119 TFLOPS, whereas the Tesla K40c has no FP16 capability listed.

Clock speeds also reflect the architectural differences. The Quadro RTX 4000 runs at a base clock of 1,005 MHz and boosts to 1,545 MHz, while the Tesla K40c operates at a much lower 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. This clock advantage, combined with the more efficient Turing design, explains the Quadro RTX 4000's superior pixel rate (98.88 GPixel/s vs. 52.56 GPixel/s) and texture rate (222.5 GTexel/s vs. 210.2 GTexel/s). The Tesla K40c has more TMUs (240 vs. 144) and ROPs (48 vs. 64), but the Quadro RTX 4000 still achieves higher throughput due to its higher clocks and architectural improvements.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The Quadro RTX 4000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the Tesla K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the Quadro RTX 4000 achieves higher bandwidth (416.0 GB/s vs. 288.4 GB/s) thanks to its faster memory clock (1,625 MHz / 13 Gbps effective vs. 1,502 MHz / 6 Gbps effective). Power consumption is also markedly different: the Quadro RTX 4000 has a TDP of 160 W with a single-slot cooler and a single 8-pin power connector, while the Tesla K40c draws 245 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and uses both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU rating is 450 W for the Quadro RTX 4000 and 550 W for the Tesla K40c.

Physical dimensions and outputs also diverge. The Quadro RTX 4000 measures 241 mm in length (9.5 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches), and provides three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs plus one USB Type-C port. The Tesla K40c is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) and has no display outputs, as it is designed for compute-only server deployments. Both cards use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface. In terms of API support, the Quadro RTX 4000 offers DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla K40c is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro RTX 4000 also has a higher FP32 compute rating of 7.119 TFLOPS compared to the Tesla K40c's 5.046 TFLOPS. The launch MSRP for the Quadro RTX 4000 was 899 USD, while the Tesla K40c launched at 7,699 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is significantly faster, scoring 74,540 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the Tesla K40c's 17,468. This represents a 326.7% performance advantage for the Quadro RTX 4000.

Q: Does the Tesla K40c have any advantage over the Quadro RTX 4000?

A: The Tesla K40c offers a larger memory capacity of 12 GB compared to 8 GB on the Quadro RTX 4000. However, the Quadro RTX 4000 has higher memory bandwidth (416.0 GB/s vs. 288.4 GB/s), which likely offsets this capacity advantage in most workloads.

Q: What architectural features does the Quadro RTX 4000 have that the Tesla K40c lacks?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 includes 36 ray tracing cores and 288 tensor cores, which are entirely absent from the Tesla K40c. It also supports FP16 compute at 14.24 TFLOPS, while the Tesla K40c has no FP16 capability.

Q: How do the power requirements compare between the two cards?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 has a TDP of 160 W and requires a suggested 450 W PSU with a single 8-pin connector. The Tesla K40c draws 245 W, needs a 550 W PSU, and uses both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector.

Q: Which card is better for modern graphics APIs?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla K40c is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro RTX 4000 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 78,844, whereas the Tesla K40c has no Vulkan benchmark result.

Q: Do both cards have the same performance percentile ranking?

A: Yes, both the Quadro RTX 4000 and the Tesla K40c are in the 61st percentile among all GPUs. However, this ranking does not reflect the 326.7% performance gap in the shared OpenCL benchmark, as the Quadro RTX 4000's average score includes lower DirectX results.