NVIDIA RTX A1000 vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall victory for the NVIDIA RTX A1000, which wins both recorded head-to-head tests. The largest gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RTX A1000 scores 52,078 against the Tesla M40's 39,192. That is a 24.7% advantage, a substantial margin that indicates the newer architecture extracts significantly more compute throughput from its hardware in this workload.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, also favors the RTX A1000, though by a smaller margin. The A1000 records 49,574 while the Tesla M40 posts 44,602, a 10% difference. This narrower gap suggests that in Vulkan compute workloads, the older Maxwell architecture remains relatively competitive, likely due to its very high raw shading unit count, but it still falls short.

Looking at the broader database picture, the RTX A1000's average benchmark score of 34,207 places it at the 79th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB, which scores 34,154, a delta of just 0.2%. The A1000 also sits within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133) and trails the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355) by only 0.4%. This clustering indicates that the A1000 performs right at the expected level for its class, with no significant outlier behavior.

The Tesla M40, by contrast, holds an average benchmark score of 41,897 and an 83rd percentile ranking. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB at 41,707, a 0.5% difference. It also sits 1.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (41,187), which is notable given the RTX 3080 Ti is a much more recent consumer flagship. The M40 also outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (40,870) by 2.5%. These figures show that despite its age, the M40's average score is buoyed by its strong OpenCL and Vulkan results, which are higher than the A1000's in absolute terms for Vulkan, though not for OpenCL.

The average benchmark score discrepancy is worth interpreting carefully. The M40's average (41,897) is higher than the A1000's (34,207), yet the A1000 wins the head-to-head OpenCL test by 24.7%. This is because the average score aggregates results across a wider set of tests, and the A1000's additional benchmark entries, including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 969, pull its average down. The M40 has only two recorded benchmarks, both of which are relatively strong. Thus, the head-to-head results are the more reliable indicator of direct performance comparison, and they favor the A1000 in both cases.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations entirely. The Tesla M40 is built on Maxwell 2.0 with the GM200 chip, while the RTX A1000 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip. The manufacturing process also differs: the M40 uses TSMC's 28 nm node, whereas the A1000 is fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. This process shrink is a major factor in the efficiency difference between the two cards.

Transistor counts are similar in absolute terms, with the M40 at 8,000 million and the A1000 at 8,700 million. However, the die size tells a very different story. The M40's die measures 601 mm², while the A1000's die is only 200 mm². This yields a transistor density of 13.3M per mm² for the M40 versus 43.5M per mm² for the A1000, a more than threefold increase in density. The A1000 packs nearly the same number of transistors into a much smaller area, which explains its dramatically lower power draw.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The M40 features 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 192.0 GB/s. So the M40 has a 50% advantage in memory capacity and roughly 50% more bandwidth. This is a meaningful difference for workloads that are memory-bound, though the A1000's newer memory type offers better efficiency per watt.

Core counts favor the M40 in raw numbers. The M40 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation units. The A1000 has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the A1000's higher boost clock of 1,462 MHz, compared to the M40's 1,112 MHz boost, helps close the gap in compute throughput. The result is that FP32 performance is nearly identical: 6.832 TFLOPS for the M40 versus 6.737 TFLOPS for the A1000.

The A1000 also adds hardware features that the M40 completely lacks. It includes 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, which enable DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) and dedicated AI acceleration. The M40's DirectX support is limited to 12 (12_1), and it has no RT or tensor cores. The A1000 also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio (6.737 TFLOPS), while the M40 has no recorded FP16 capability. For modern workloads involving ray tracing, AI inference, or mixed-precision compute, the A1000 has a decisive architectural advantage.

The M40 is a dual-slot card with an 8-pin EPS power connector and a 250 W TDP. It has no display outputs, indicating its original purpose as a compute-only accelerator. The A1000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 50 W TDP, and it includes four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The A1000 also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the M40 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The A1000 is physically much smaller at 163 mm in length versus the M40's 267 mm.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The two are nearly identical. The Tesla M40 delivers 6.832 TFLOPS, while the RTX A1000 delivers 6.737 TFLOPS, a difference of less than 1.5%.

Q: Does the RTX A1000 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The A1000 includes 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Tesla M40 has no RT or tensor cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla M40 offers significantly more memory bandwidth at 288.4 GB/s, compared to the RTX A1000's 192.0 GB/s. The M40 also has more capacity: 12 GB versus 8 GB.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The RTX A1000 is far more efficient. Its TDP is 50 W, compared to the M40's 250 W, and it requires no power connectors. The A1000 also has a smaller die and uses a newer 8 nm process.

Q: Why does the Tesla M40 have a higher average benchmark score if it loses the head-to-head tests?

A: The M40's average score of 41,897 is based on only two benchmarks, both of which are strong. The A1000's average of 34,207 includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 969, which lowers its average despite winning both Geekbench head-to-head tests.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: Only the RTX A1000, which has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Tesla M40 has no display outputs at all, reflecting its compute-only design.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward choice for most use cases: the NVIDIA RTX A1000 is the superior card for modern workloads. It wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, with a 24.7% lead in OpenCL and a 10% lead in Vulkan. It adds ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and FP16 support, all of which are absent from the Tesla M40. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of external power connectors make it far easier to integrate into a workstation, and its four display outputs allow for direct video output.

The Tesla M40 retains advantages in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 12 GB of VRAM and 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth are valuable for large datasets that exceed the A1000's 8 GB capacity. It also has a higher theoretical pixel rate (106.8 GPixel/s versus 46.78 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.5 GTexel/s versus 105.3 GTexel/s), which reflects its larger number of ROPs and TMUs. For workloads that are purely memory-bound and do not require modern API features, the M40 could still be a viable option, particularly if the 12 GB capacity is essential.

However, the M40 is end-of-life, while the A1000 is an active product. The M40's lack of display outputs and its 250 W power draw are practical disadvantages. Its PCIe 3.0 interface is also older than the A1000's PCIe 4.0. Given that the A1000 wins the direct performance tests and offers a far more complete feature set, the data favors the A1000 for anything beyond legacy compute scenarios.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla M40 | NVIDIA RTX A1000 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Ampere |

| Chip | GM200 | GA107 |

| Process node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Die size | 601 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor density | 13.3M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 948 MHz | 727 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1112 MHz | 1462 MHz |

| Memory size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 3072 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 192 | 72 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| RT cores | None | 18 |

| Tensor cores | None | 72 |

| FP32 | 6.832 TFLOPS | 6.737 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not available | 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel rate | 106.8 GPixel/s | 46.78 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 213.5 GTexel/s | 105.3 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 250 W | 50 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | 8-pin EPS | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Length | 267 mm | 163 mm |

| Production status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release date | 2015-11-09 | 2024-04-15 |