NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation and the NVIDIA Tesla K40c represent two distinct eras of GPU design, with the data showing a decisive generational leap in performance. Based on the available benchmark results, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the unequivocal winner, delivering a 347% higher score in the only shared test, while also bringing modern architecture features that the Kepler-based Tesla K40c fundamentally lacks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are stark. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation scores 78,074 points, while the Tesla K40c scores 17,468 points. This translates to a 347% performance advantage for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation, a nearly 4.5x improvement in raw compute throughput. This is not a marginal victory; it is a complete and total dominance in this workload, reflecting the massive advancements in GPU architecture over the decade separating these two products.

While the Tesla K40c has no other data points in the head-to-head comparison, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation's broader benchmark suite further illustrates its performance class. In the Passmark G3D test, it achieves a score of 16,927, and its average benchmark score across all tests is 18,954. This places it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rivals including the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (avg score 19,030, delta of -0.4%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (avg score 19,036, delta of -0.4%). The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is essentially performance-equivalent to these cards, all clustered within a 0.5% margin. The Tesla K40c, by contrast, sits in the 61st percentile with an average score of 17,468, putting its nearest rivals at the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (avg score 17,509, delta of -0.2%) and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (avg score 17,551, delta of -0.5%). The data shows the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is not just faster than the K40c; it competes in a higher performance tier altogether, roughly matching cards that are themselves far ahead of the K40c's closest competitors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, explaining the benchmark disparity. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD107 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 18,900 million transistors onto a 159 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 118.9M / mm². In contrast, the Tesla K40c uses the Kepler architecture with the GK180 chip, built on a much older 28 nm process. It houses only 7,080 million transistors on a much larger 561 mm² die, yielding a density of just 12.6M / mm². This fundamental difference in manufacturing and design philosophy is the root cause of the performance chasm.

The feature sets are equally divergent. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a modern workstation card equipped with 22 ray tracing cores and 88 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The Tesla K40c, released in 2013, has no ray tracing or tensor cores at all, and its DirectX support is limited to 12 (11_0) with Vulkan 1.2.175. While the K40c has more shading units (2,880 vs 2,816) and texture mapping units (240 vs 88), its raw compute is far lower, with FP32 performance of 5.046 TFLOPS compared to the RTX 2000 Ada Generation's 12.00 TFLOPS. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, while the K40c has no listed FP16 capability. The clock speeds tell a similar story: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation boosts to 2130 MHz from a base of 1620 MHz, while the K40c is limited to a 876 MHz boost on a 745 MHz base.

The Verdict

The verdict is clear from the data: the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the superior product in every measurable way. It delivers a 347% higher OpenCL score, offers modern features like ray tracing and tensor cores, and is built on a process node that is several generations ahead. The Tesla K40c is an end-of-life product from 2013, and its performance and feature set are simply obsolete for any modern workload.

However, the choice depends entirely on the use case and context. For any task requiring modern graphics APIs, AI acceleration, or high-performance compute, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the only viable option. Its 12.00 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 16 GB of GDDR6 memory make it a capable workstation card. The Tesla K40c, with its 5.046 TFLOPS and 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a wider 384-bit bus (providing 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth), has no advantages in the data. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation, despite its narrower 128-bit bus, still achieves 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for its performance level. The K40c's higher bandwidth is a relic of a less efficient architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 18,954, compared to the Tesla K40c's 17,468.

Q: Does the Tesla K40c support ray tracing?

A: No. The Tesla K40c has no ray tracing cores, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 22 of them.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 performance?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers 12.00 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is more than double the Tesla K40c's 5.046 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla K40c has a higher memory bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s due to its 384-bit bus, compared to the RTX 2000 Ada Generation's 256.0 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is built on a 5 nm process, while the Tesla K40c uses a 28 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation ranks in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla K40c is in the 61st percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins in virtually every category that matters for modern computing. It is the clear choice for any workload involving DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, or OpenGL 4.6 (both support OpenGL 4.6). Its 22 ray tracing cores and 88 tensor cores make it suitable for rendering and AI inference tasks. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 12.00 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it a strong candidate for professional visualization and compute tasks. The data shows it is 347% faster in OpenCL, a common compute benchmark.

The Tesla K40c, on the other hand, has no clear wins based on the data. Its higher memory bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s and larger number of TMUs (240 vs 88) do not translate into any benchmark victory. Its 2,880 shading units are only slightly more than the RTX 2000 Ada Generation's 2,816, but the massive clock speed difference (boost 876 MHz vs 2130 MHz) negates this. The only scenario where the K40c might be considered is in legacy environments where its older Kepler architecture is specifically required, but the provided data offers no performance justification for such a choice. For all practical purposes, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the definitive winner.

Specification Differences

The specifications below highlight the key differences between the two GPUs.

• Architecture: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is based on Ada Lovelace, while the Tesla K40c uses Kepler.
• Process Node: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process, versus the Tesla K40c's 28 nm process.
• Transistors: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 18,900 million transistors, compared to 7,080 million on the Tesla K40c.
• Die Size: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 159 mm² die, while the Tesla K40c has a 561 mm² die.
• Base Clock: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 1620 MHz base clock, versus 745 MHz on the Tesla K40c.
• Boost Clock: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation boosts to 2130 MHz, while the Tesla K40c boosts to 876 MHz.
• Memory Size: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6, while the Tesla K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5.
• Memory Bus: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 128-bit bus, versus a 384-bit bus on the Tesla K40c.
• Memory Bandwidth: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Tesla K40c has 288.4 GB/s.
• Shading Units: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 2,816 shading units, while the Tesla K40c has 2,880.
• TMUs: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 88 TMUs, while the Tesla K40c has 240.
• ROPs: Both have 48 ROPs.
• RT Cores: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 22 RT cores, while the Tesla K40c has none.
• Tensor Cores: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 88 tensor cores, while the Tesla K40c has none.
• FP32 Performance: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 12.00 TFLOPS, while the Tesla K40c has 5.046 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Tesla K40c has no listed FP16 capability.
• TDP: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a TDP of 70 W, while the Tesla K40c has a TDP of 245 W.
• Power Connectors: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has no power connectors, while the Tesla K40c requires 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin.
• Bus Interface: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Tesla K40c uses PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Tesla K40c has no outputs.
• DirectX Support: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Tesla K40c supports 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan Support: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation supports 1.4, while the Tesla K40c supports 1.2.175.
• Length: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 168 mm long, while the Tesla K40c is 267 mm long.
• Production Status: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is Active, while the Tesla K40c is End-of-life.