NVIDIA RTX A2000 vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 is the superior performer in every head-to-head benchmark, delivering 72.7% higher OpenCL scores and 54.9% higher Vulkan scores than the Tesla M40. The RTX A2000 is the clear choice for anyone needing compute acceleration, modern API support, or display output, while the Tesla M40 retains a niche only for workloads requiring its 12 GB memory capacity and 384-bit bus, provided the software stack tolerates its older Maxwell architecture. The Tesla M40’s 83rd percentile versus the RTX A2000’s 85th percentile underscores the gap, but the M40’s nearest rivals (including the RTX 3080 Ti at 1.7% above) show it still competes in raw compute within its generation.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA RTX A2000 if your priority is compute performance per benchmark score. It wins both geekbench tests decisively: its OpenCL score of 67695 crushes the Tesla M40’s 39192 (a 72.7% lead), and its Vulkan score of 69089 beats the M40’s 44602 (54.9% ahead). The A2000 also offers modern features the M40 lacks entirely—26 RT cores, 104 tensor cores, and 1:1 FP16 throughput (7.987 TFLOPS)—making it the only option for ray tracing or AI-adjacent tasks. Its 85th percentile vs all GPUs places it near the RTX 5880 Ada Generation (0.2% delta) and above the Arc A730M (1% delta), indicating it punches well above its 6 GB memory size.

Choose the NVIDIA Tesla M40 only if your workload demands more memory capacity and you can ignore its compute deficit. The M40 has 12 GB of GDDR5 versus the A2000’s 6 GB GDDR6, and a 384-bit bus versus 192-bit, yielding near-identical bandwidth (288.4 GB/s vs 288.0 GB/s). However, the M40’s average benchmark score of 41897 trails the A2000’s 46043 by roughly 9%, and it lacks display outputs entirely—it is a compute-only card. Its 83rd percentile places it near the Tesla M40 24 GB (0.5% delta) and above the RTX 3080 Ti (1.7% delta), but those rivals are close, not superior. For any mixed-use or modern workload, the A2000 wins outright.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A2000 is built on Ampere architecture (chip GA106) using an 8 nm Samsung process, housing 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die. The Tesla M40 uses Maxwell 2.0 (chip GM200) on a 28 nm TSMC process, with 8,000 million transistors on a much larger 601 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 43.5M per mm² for the A2000 versus 13.3M per mm² for the M40—a 3.3x density advantage for the newer chip.

The A2000 features 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 26 RT cores, and 104 tensor cores. The M40 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but no RT or tensor cores. The M40 compensates with higher texture and pixel rates: 213.5 GTexel/s and 106.8 GPixel/s versus the A2000’s 124.8 GTexel/s and 57.60 GPixel/s. In raw FP32, the A2000 leads at 7.987 TFLOPS versus 6.832 TFLOPS, but the M40 has no FP16 support while the A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Clock behavior differs significantly. The M40 has a higher base clock (948 MHz) and boost clock (1112 MHz) than the A2000 (562 MHz base, 1200 MHz boost), reflecting the A2000’s power-frugal design. Memory clocks are nearly identical: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the A2000 versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the M40. The A2000 uses GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus; the M40 uses GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus.

API support is a generational leap: the A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the M40 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The A2000 also has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the M40 has none. The A2000 is dual-slot with no power connectors and a 70 W TDP, while the M40 is dual-slot requiring an 8-pin EPS connector at 250 W TDP. The A2000 is 167 mm long; the M40 is 267 mm.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher compute performance?

A: The RTX A2000 wins every benchmark. Its OpenCL score of 67695 is 72.7% higher than the M40’s 39192, and its Vulkan score of 69089 is 54.9% higher than the M40’s 44602.

Q: Does the Tesla M40 support ray tracing?

A: No. The M40 has no RT cores, whereas the A2000 has 26 RT cores. The M40 also lacks tensor cores, while the A2000 has 104.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Tesla M40 has 12 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, versus the A2000’s 6 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. Despite the capacity difference, bandwidth is nearly identical: 288.4 GB/s for the M40 and 288.0 GB/s for the A2000.

Q: Can the Tesla M40 output video to displays?

A: No. The M40 has no display outputs. The A2000 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The A2000 has a 70 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The M40 has a 250 W TDP, requires an 8-pin EPS connector, and needs a 600 W PSU.

Q: How do their overall benchmark percentiles compare?

A: The A2000 sits at the 85th percentile vs all GPUs with an average score of 46043. The M40 sits at the 83rd percentile with an average score of 41897. The A2000’s nearest rival is the RTX 5880 Ada Generation (0.2% delta), while the M40’s is the Tesla M40 24 GB (0.5% delta).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A2000 | NVIDIA Tesla M40 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 12,000 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 13.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 562 MHz | 948 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 1112 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB GDDR6 | 12 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps) |

| Shading Units | 3328 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 104 | 192 |

| ROPs | 48 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 26 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 104 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 57.60 GPixel/s | 106.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 124.8 GTexel/s | 213.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.987 TFLOPS | 6.832 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| TDP | 70 W | 250 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 8-pin EPS |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

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

| Dimensions | 167 mm (6.6 in) | 267 mm (10.5 in) |

| Release Date | 2021-08-09 | 2015-11-09 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a complete sweep for the RTX A2000. In geekbench_opencl, the A2000 scores 67695 against the M40’s 39192, a delta of 72.7%. This is not a marginal win—it is a generational gap. The A2000’s OpenCL result is 1.7x the M40’s, reflecting the Ampere architecture’s superior compute throughput (7.987 TFLOPS FP32 vs 6.832 TFLOPS) and the presence of tensor cores that accelerate certain OpenCL workloads.

In geekbench_vulkan, the A2000 scores 69089 versus the M40’s 44602, a 54.9% advantage. Vulkan is a modern API, and the M40’s Maxwell architecture, while supporting Vulkan 1.4, lacks the dedicated hardware (RT cores, tensor cores) that the A2000 can leverage. The A2000’s Vulkan score is 1.55x the M40’s, and this gap would likely widen in any ray-tracing or AI-inference task, though those are not covered by the provided benchmarks.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the trend: the A2000’s 46043 average is 9.9% higher than the M40’s 41897. The A2000’s nearest rival, the RTX 5880 Ada Generation, is within 0.2%, meaning the A2000 sits at the top of its performance class. The M40’s nearest rival, the Tesla M40 24 GB, is only 0.5% away, showing the M40 is near the ceiling for its own architecture. The M40’s delta to the RTX 3080 Ti (1.7% faster) is notable, but that rival is a consumer card, not a workstation product.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 wins in every measured compute benchmark and in all modern workload categories. It is the only card with RT cores and tensor cores, making it the sole choice for ray tracing, DLSS-style AI acceleration, or any workload that leverages FP16 (7.987 TFLOPS 1:1). Its 70 W TDP and lack of power connectors mean it can fit in systems with a 250 W PSU, whereas the M40 demands a 600 W PSU. The A2000’s four mini-DisplayPort outputs make it usable for visualization or multi-monitor setups; the M40 cannot drive any display. Its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface doubles the bandwidth of the M40’s PCIe 3.0 x16, benefiting data transfer in compute pipelines.

The Tesla M40 wins only in specific hardware specs, not in benchmarks. Its 12 GB memory capacity doubles the A2000’s 6 GB, which matters for datasets that exceed 6 GB. Its 384-bit bus and 96 ROPs deliver a higher pixel rate (106.8 GPixel/s vs 57.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.5 GTexel/s vs 124.8 GTexel/s), which could benefit fill-rate-bound legacy applications—though no benchmark in the data confirms this. The M40’s higher base and boost clocks (948/1112 MHz vs 562/1200 MHz) suggest it may sustain performance differently under sustained load, but the A2000’s boost clock is higher. For compute, the M40’s 6.832 TFLOPS FP32 is 14.5% lower than the A2000’s 7.987 TFLOPS, so the M40’s only realistic win condition is a workload that requires more than 6 GB of VRAM and does not use any Ampere-specific features. In that narrow case, the M40’s 12 GB capacity is the deciding factor, but the data shows it will still be slower per benchmark score in most scenarios.