NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40m Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, and the result is a decisive win for the newer card. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74,540, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40m scores 19,885. That is a 73.3% difference in favor of the Quadro RTX 4000, meaning the Turing-based card delivers over three and a half times the raw compute throughput in this particular workload. The gap is so large that it effectively places the two cards in different performance tiers, despite both being professional workstation products.

Looking at the broader database context, the Tesla K40m's score places it at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 4000 sits at the 61st percentile. This is curious: the K40m has a higher percentile ranking despite scoring far lower in this test. The explanation lies in the distribution of scores across the database. The K40m's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W7000 at 19,905 (a 0.1% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19,765 (0.6% ahead), the AMD FirePro D300 at 19,637 (1.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 at 19,602 (1.4% ahead). These are all tightly clustered within a couple of percentage points, indicating that the K40m is squarely in the middle of a dense pack of similar-performance GPUs.

The Quadro RTX 4000, by contrast, has nearest rivals that are dramatically lower in score. The AMD Radeon HD 7790 averages 17,666 (0.7% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 averages 17,639 (0.9% behind), the AMD Radeon 780M averages 17,588 (1.1% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 averages 17,551 (1.4% behind). The RTX 4000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 17,789, which reflects a blend of many different workloads. Its nearest rivals are all within 1.4% of that average, but the raw OpenCL score of 74,540 towers over them. This suggests that the OpenCL test is a particular strength for the RTX 4000, while its average is pulled down by other tests where it does not dominate as thoroughly.

The data shows that the Tesla K40m has no wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the Quadro RTX 4000 wins the single available benchmark. Every other measurement in the database applies only to one card or the other, so the direct comparison is limited. Still, the magnitude of the OpenCL delta is informative: it is not a marginal victory but a generational leap in compute performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 4000 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 74,540 against the K40m's 19,885 demonstrates a fundamental advantage in general-purpose GPU compute. The card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, making it suited for ray-traced rendering, AI inference, and modern graphics workloads. Its FP16 performance of 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) further indicates strong mixed-precision compute capabilities, which matter for machine learning and scientific simulation tasks that can exploit reduced precision.

The Tesla K40m, on the other hand, is a pure compute accelerator with no display outputs. It has no RT cores and no tensor cores, so it cannot accelerate ray tracing or tensor operations at all. Its strengths lie in its massive 12 GB memory pool, 384-bit memory bus, and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, which are substantial for data-heavy workloads that need large datasets resident on the GPU. The 48 ROPs and 240 TMUs provide a texture rate of 210.2 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 52.56 GPixel/s, which are respectable figures for its era. The K40m's OpenCL score of 19,885 places it near the AMD FirePro W7000 and NVIDIA Quadro K5200, both of which were professional cards of a similar vintage.

The use-case split is clear from the data. The Quadro RTX 4000 is the choice for modern graphics work, ray tracing, AI acceleration, and any workload that benefits from tensor cores or FP16 compute. The Tesla K40m is the choice for legacy compute tasks where large memory capacity matters more than raw speed, and where the absence of display outputs is acceptable because the card lives in a server or render farm. The K40m's 12 GB of GDDR5 memory exceeds the RTX 4000's 8 GB of GDDR6, so for datasets that fit within 12 GB but not 8 GB, the older card retains a capacity advantage despite its lower bandwidth and slower compute.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations separated by five years of development. The Tesla K40m uses the GK110B chip based on Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip based on Turing architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 12 nm process. The TU104 contains 13,600 million transistors in a 545 mm² die, giving a density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The transistor count nearly doubles while the die shrinks slightly, a direct consequence of the denser manufacturing process.

The compute configurations differ substantially. The K40m has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RTX 4000 has fewer shading units at 2,304, fewer TMUs at 144, but more ROPs at 64. Despite having fewer shaders, the RTX 4000 achieves a higher FP32 throughput of 7.119 TFLOPS versus 5.046 TFLOPS for the K40m, thanks to its higher clock speeds. The K40m runs at a base clock of 745 MHz with a boost of 876 MHz, while the RTX 4000 runs at 1,005 MHz base and 1,545 MHz boost. The boost clock advantage of nearly 700 MHz more than compensates for the lower shader count.

Memory architectures also diverge. The K40m uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, achieving 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 416.0 GB/s bandwidth. The narrower bus is offset by the faster memory clock: 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the K40m versus 1,625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) for the RTX 4000. The result is that the RTX 4000 delivers 44% more bandwidth from a smaller memory pool.

The RTX 4000 adds features that did not exist in the Kepler generation: 36 RT cores for ray tracing and 288 tensor cores for AI workloads. It also supports FP16 at 14.24 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the K40m has no recorded FP16 capability. The RTX 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the K40m is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6, and both use PCIe 3.0 x16. The RTX 4000 has display outputs (3x DisplayPort 1.4a1x USB Type-C), while the K40m has none. The RTX 4000 draws 160 W TDP with a single 1x 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W, while the K40m draws 245 W and suggests a 550 W PSU. The RTX 4000 is single-slot at 241 mm long and 111 mm tall, and the K40m is dual-slot at 267 mm long.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The K40m was released in November 2013 with a launch MSRP of 7,699 USD, and the RTX 4000 was released in November 2018 with a launch MSRP of 899 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Tesla K40m has 12 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro RTX 4000 has 8 GB of GDDR6. The K40m offers a larger memory pool for dataset capacity.

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74,540 in Geekbench OpenCL, far ahead of the Tesla K40m's 19,885. The delta is a 73.3% difference in favor of the RTX 4000.

Q: Does the Quadro RTX 4000 support ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes, the RTX 4000 includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, which the Tesla K40m lacks. The K40m has no RT cores and no tensor cores.

Q: Why does the Tesla K40m have a higher percentile despite a lower score?

A: The K40m sits at the 65th percentile with an average score of 19,785, while the RTX 4000 is at the 61st percentile with an average score of 17,789. The K40m's rivals are tightly clustered within 1.4%, so its position among all GPUs is higher even though its raw score is lower.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Tesla K40m has a 245 W TDP and suggests a 550 W PSU. The Quadro RTX 4000 has a 160 W TDP and suggests a 450 W PSU. The RTX 4000 uses a single 8-pin connector, while the K40m has no recorded power connector.

Q: Which card supports modern APIs?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla K40m supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Tesla K40m | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Turing |

| Generation | Tesla Kepler (Kxx) | Quadro Turing (Tx000) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 13,600 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 545 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 745 MHz | 1005 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 876 MHz | 1545 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1625 MHz, 13 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 416.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2880 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 240 | 144 |

| ROPs | 48 | 64 |

| RT Cores | None | 36 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 288 |

| Pixel Rate | 52.56 GPixel/s | 98.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 210.2 GTexel/s | 222.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.046 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | None recorded | 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 245 W | 160 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connector | None recorded | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 3x DisplayPort 1.4a1x USB Type-C |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Length | 267 mm, 10.5 inches | 241 mm, 9.5 inches |

| Height | Not recorded | 111 mm, 4.4 inches |

| Release Date | 2013-11-21 | 2018-11-12 |

| Predecessor | Tesla Fermi | Quadro Volta |

| Successor | Tesla Maxwell | Workstation Ampere |

| Launch MSRP | 7,699 USD | 899 USD |

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Quadro RTX 4000 is the superior compute performer by a wide margin. Its OpenCL score of 74,540 versus 19,885 for the Tesla K40m is a 73.3% difference, and this is not a subtle advantage. The RTX 4000 also brings modern features that the K40m cannot match: RT cores, tensor cores, FP16 support, a newer DirectX version, a newer Vulkan version, and display outputs. It consumes less power (160 W versus 245 W), occupies a single slot instead of dual slots, and carries a launch MSRP of 899 USD compared to 7,699 USD. For nearly every workload, the RTX 4000 is the obvious pick.

The Tesla K40m retains one meaningful advantage: memory capacity. Its 12 GB of GDDR5 exceeds the RTX 4000's 8 GB of GDDR6, and its 384-bit bus provides a different memory profile. For applications that require more than 8 GB of resident data, the K40m can hold larger working sets. However, the RTX 4000's bandwidth is higher at 416.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s, so even where the K40m has more capacity, the RTX 4000 moves data faster. The K40m also has a higher percentile ranking (65th versus 61st), but that reflects the density of its nearest rivals, not superior performance.

The verdict is straightforward. The Quadro RTX 4000 is the better card for compute, graphics, AI, and modern API support. The Tesla K40m is only preferable for legacy compute tasks where 12 GB of memory is an absolute requirement and the absence of display outputs is acceptable. Anyone choosing between these two should pick the RTX 4000 unless their workload strictly demands the larger memory pool of the K40m. The recorded data leaves little room for debate.