NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs NVIDIA Tesla K40m Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K40m and NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation represent two distinct eras of professional GPU design, separated by a decade of architectural evolution. The K40m is a Kepler-era compute card from 2013, built on a 28 nm process, while the RTX 2000 Ada is a modern workstation GPU on a 5 nm node. Benchmark data shows the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is decisively faster in the single available head-to-head test, but the two cards have different strengths in terms of raw compute versus modern feature support. This analysis breaks down where each card wins based strictly on the provided performance metrics and specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins in every benchmark category where both cards have data. In the sole direct comparison available—Geekbench OpenCL—the RTX 2000 Ada Generation scores 78,074, while the Tesla K40m scores 19,885. That is a delta of -74.5% from the perspective of the older card, meaning the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is roughly four times faster in this OpenCL workload. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation also shows wins in modern API support, with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, none of which the K40m possesses.

The Tesla K40m, however, holds some theoretical advantages in specific legacy metrics. Its texture rate is higher at 210.2 GTexel/s compared to the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s 187.4 GTexel/s. Its memory bus is wider at 384 bit versus 128 bit, and its memory bandwidth is slightly higher at 288.4 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. In shading units, the K40m has 2,880 versus 2,816, and in TMUs it has 240 versus 88. These numbers suggest the K40m can still push raw pixel and texture throughput in older workloads that are not optimized for the newer architecture. However, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation counters with a much higher pixel rate of 102.2 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s, and its FP32 compute of 12.00 TFLOPS dwarfs the K40m’s 5.046 TFLOPS.

In terms of average benchmark scores, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation also leads slightly, with an average of 18,954 across its benchmark suite versus the K40m’s single-score average of 19,885. However, the K40m’s average is based on only one test, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has multiple scores, including a Passmark G3D score of 16,927 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 83,360. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation also wins on power efficiency; its TDP of 70 W is drastically lower than the K40m’s 245 W, and it requires only a 250 W suggested PSU versus 550 W.

The Verdict

For any modern workload, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the clear choice. The data shows it is massively ahead in OpenCL compute, and it supports modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, which are essential for current software. It also brings ray tracing cores and tensor cores to the table, features the K40m lacks entirely. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is an active product with a smaller physical footprint (168 mm length versus 267 mm), a lower TDP, and no external power connectors required, making it vastly easier to integrate into a modern system.

The Tesla K40m only makes sense in very specific legacy scenarios. If you have software that relies on its wider 384-bit memory bus or higher texture fill rate, and that software does not benefit from the newer architecture, the K40m could still perform. However, its end-of-life status, lack of display outputs, and reliance on PCIe 3.0 x16 make it a poor choice for any new build. The percentile rankings are close—the K40m sits at the 65th percentile versus the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s 63rd—but that is misleading because the K40m’s percentile is based on a single benchmark, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s is based on a broader suite. For any buyer today, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the only rational pick from a performance and feature standpoint.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation scores 78,074, while the Tesla K40m scores 19,885. The deltaPct is -74.5%, meaning the K40m trails by nearly three-quarters relative to the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s score. This is a massive gap, reflecting not just the newer architecture but also the clock speed advantage: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a base clock of 1620 MHz and boost of 2130 MHz, while the K40m runs at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the K40m’s OpenCL score of 19,885 places it near the AMD FirePro W7000 (19,905, a -0.1% delta) and ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, a 0.6% delta). This indicates the K40m is roughly on par with mid-range GPUs from a decade ago. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s OpenCL score of 78,074 is not directly compared to its nearest rivals in this test, but its average score of 18,954 across all tests places it near the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19,030, a -0.4% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, a -0.4% delta). This is interesting: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s average is dragged down by low Passmark DirectX scores (e.g., 71 for DirectX 12, 82 for DirectX 10), but its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are extremely high.

In other benchmark categories where only the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has data, it shows strong results: Passmark G3D at 16,927, Passmark GPU Compute at 7,834, and Geekbench Vulkan at 83,360. The K40m has no such data, so we cannot compare those directly. The only head-to-head conclusion is that in OpenCL, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is overwhelmingly faster, and given its higher pixel rate and FP32 throughput, it is reasonable to expect similar outcomes in other compute-heavy applications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is significantly faster, scoring 78,074 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Tesla K40m’s 19,885, a delta of -74.5% in favor of the newer card.

Q: Does the Tesla K40m support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The K40m has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation, by contrast, has 22 RT cores and 88 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Tesla K40m has a higher memory bandwidth at 288.4 GB/s, thanks to its 384-bit bus, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The Tesla K40m has a higher texture rate at 210.2 GTexel/s, compared to the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s 187.4 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Tesla K40m has a TDP of 245 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a TDP of 70 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, and it requires no external power connectors.

Q: Which card supports modern APIs like Vulkan 1.4?

A: Only the RTX 2000 Ada Generation supports Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla K40m is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_1).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Tesla K40m uses the GK110B chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip based on the Ada Lovelace architecture, also from TSMC but on a 5 nm process. It has 18,900 million transistors on a much smaller 159 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 118.9M per mm²—nearly ten times denser.

The Kepler architecture lacks dedicated RT cores and tensor cores, which are present in the Ada Lovelace architecture (22 RT cores and 88 tensor cores on the RTX 2000 Ada Generation). The K40m also has no display outputs, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The memory types differ as well: the K40m uses GDDR5, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses GDDR6. The bus interface also differs, with the K40m on PCIe 3.0 x16 and the RTX 2000 Ada Generation on PCIe 4.0 x8.

The API support is a major architectural divider. The K40m is capped at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The production status also reflects the architectural gap: the K40m is end-of-life, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is active. The K40m’s predecessor is Tesla Fermi and its successor is Tesla Maxwell, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s predecessor is Workstation Ampere and its successor is Blackwell PRO W.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets show dramatic differences across nearly every field. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a base clock of 1620 MHz and a boost of 2130 MHz, versus the K40m’s 745 MHz and 876 MHz. Memory configurations differ: the K40m has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The shading unit counts are close (2,880 vs 2,816), but the TMU counts differ hugely (240 vs 88), and the ROP counts are identical at 48.

The FP32 compute is 12.00 TFLOPS on the RTX 2000 Ada Generation versus 5.046 TFLOPS on the K40m. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation also has FP16 performance of 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1), which the K40m does not list. Pixel rates are 102.2 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s, though the K40m retains a higher texture rate at 210.2 GTexel/s versus 187.4 GTexel/s. The TDP is a stark contrast: 70 W for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation versus 245 W for the K40m, with suggested PSUs of 250 W and 550 W, respectively.

Physical dimensions differ as well: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 168 mm long and 69 mm high, while the K40m is 267 mm long. Both are dual-slot cards, but the RTX 2000 Ada Generation requires no power connectors, while the K40m lists none either. The launch MSRP for the K40m was 7,699 USD, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation launched at 649 USD. The release dates are 2013-11-21 for the K40m and 2024-02-11 for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation, and the bus interfaces are PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8.