NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute throughput?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell delivers 126.0 TFLOPS FP32, which is 25x higher than the Tesla K40c’s 5.046 TFLOPS. The RTX PRO 6000 also matches that figure for FP16 at 126.0 TFLOPS (1:1), while the K40c has no listed FP16 capability.

Q: How do the two compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell offers 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, yielding 1.79 TB/s bandwidth. The Tesla K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 288.4 GB/s — roughly 6.2x less bandwidth and 8x less capacity.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The RTX PRO 6000’s GB202 chip packs 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, giving a density of 122.9M / mm². The K40c’s GK180 contains 7,080 million transistors on 561 mm², resulting in 12.6M / mm² — a 9.8x density advantage for Blackwell.

Q: Which card has newer API support?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla K40c only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do their benchmark percentiles compare?

A: The Tesla K40c sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 17,468 in Geekbench OpenCL. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is at the 59th percentile, averaging 16,408 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. These are different test suites, so direct score comparison is not meaningful.

Q: What are the power and connectivity differences?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell has a 600 W TDP with a single 16-pin connector and a suggested 1000 W PSU. The Tesla K40c draws 245 W, using 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin, with a 550 W suggested PSU. The K40c has no display outputs; the RTX PRO 6000 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1b.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent a 12-year generational leap in NVIDIA’s compute architecture. The Tesla K40c is built on the Kepler architecture (chip GK180) using TSMC’s 28 nm process, while the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture (chip GB202) on a 5 nm TSMC node. This process shrink enables a dramatic transistor count increase: 7,080 million on the K40c versus 92,200 million on the RTX PRO 6000, despite the die size only growing from 561 mm² to 750 mm². The resulting transistor density jumps from 12.6M / mm² to 122.9M / mm².

The shader configuration differs fundamentally. The K40c has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with no dedicated RT or tensor cores. The RTX PRO 6000 features 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 188 RT cores, and 752 tensor cores. This represents not just a scaling of ALUs but the addition of specialized hardware for ray tracing and AI workloads that did not exist in Kepler.

Clock speeds also diverge significantly. The K40c runs at a 745 MHz base with 876 MHz boost, while the RTX PRO 6000 operates at 1,590 MHz base and 2,617 MHz boost. Combined with the massive shader count increase, this yields pixel rates of 52.56 GPixel/s for the K40c versus 502.5 GPixel/s for the RTX PRO 6000, and texture rates of 210.2 GTexel/s versus 1,968.0 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture has evolved from GDDR5 to GDDR7. The K40c uses 12 GB at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) across a 384-bit bus. The RTX PRO 6000 uses 96 GB at 1,750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) across a 512-bit bus. The bandwidth leap from 288.4 GB/s to 1.79 TB/s is a 6.2x improvement, while capacity grows 8x. The bus interface also advances from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 5.0 x16, doubling the per-lane transfer rate across two generations of PCIe.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The FACT PACK includes no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. Each card was tested with a different benchmark suite: the Tesla K40c ran Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 17,468, while the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell ran 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, scoring 16,408. These tests measure different workloads — OpenCL compute versus DirectX 12 gaming/graphics — so the raw numbers cannot be compared as a like-for-like performance metric.

What can be compared is each card’s standing relative to its own peers. The Tesla K40c’s nearest rivals are all within a narrow band: AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509, -0.2% delta), AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, -0.5%), AMD Radeon 780M (17,588, -0.7%), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639, -1%). This means the K40c is essentially at parity with these cards, trailing the RTX 4060 by just 1% in Geekbench OpenCL. For a 2013-era compute card, that clustering around modern integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs shows its compute performance has aged but remains functional.

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell’s nearest rivals in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 include AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (16,415, 0% delta), AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16,361, +0.3%), AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16,351, +0.4%), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16,504, -0.6%). The data shows this flagship workstation card is essentially tied with these varied competitors — ranging from a 2023 workstation GPU to a 2019 gaming card to a mobile Pro GPU — all within a 0.9% spread. Notably, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell slightly trails the RTX 5090 D V2 by 0.6%.

The wins tally is zero for both cards in direct head-to-head benchmarks, meaning no shared test data exists. The only conclusion from the benchmark data is that each card performs at a level consistent with its contemporary peers, but no cross-GPU comparison can be drawn from the available scores.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Tesla K40c and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell:

• Architecture: Kepler vs Blackwell 2.0
• Process node: 28 nm vs 5 nm
• Transistor count: 7,080 million vs 92,200 million
• Die size: 561 mm² vs 750 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.6M / mm² vs 122.9M / mm²
• Base clock: 745 MHz vs 1,590 MHz
• Boost clock: 876 MHz vs 2,617 MHz
• Memory clock: 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) vs 1,750 MHz (28 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 12 GB vs 96 GB
• Memory type: GDDR5 vs GDDR7
• Memory bus width: 384 bit vs 512 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 288.4 GB/s vs 1.79 TB/s
• Shading units: 2,880 vs 24,064
• TMUs: 240 vs 752
• ROPs: 48 vs 192
• RT cores: None vs 188
• Tensor cores: None vs 752
• Pixel rate: 52.56 GPixel/s vs 502.5 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 210.2 GTexel/s vs 1,968.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 5.046 TFLOPS vs 126.0 TFLOPS
• FP16: None vs 126.0 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 245 W vs 600 W
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs 1x 16-pin
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs 1000 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display outputs: No outputs vs 4x DisplayPort 2.1b
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 vs 1.4
• Dimensions: 267 mm (10.5 inches) vs 304 mm (12 inches) length; the RTX PRO 6000 adds height of 137 mm (5.4 inches) and width of 40 mm (1.6 inches)
• Production status: End-of-life vs Active
• Release date: 2013-10-07 vs 2025-03-17
• Launch MSRP: 7,699 USD vs 8,565 USD

The Verdict

The data presents a clear verdict: the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is the superior GPU by nearly every architectural and specification metric. It offers 25x the FP32 throughput, 8x the memory capacity, 6.2x the bandwidth, and adds RT cores, tensor cores, and modern API support that the Tesla K40c lacks entirely. The only areas where the K40c holds any advantage are lower power draw (245 W vs 600 W) and a more modest PSU requirement (550 W vs 1000 W), plus a shorter physical length (267 mm vs 304 mm).

However, the benchmark data complicates a simple "newer is better" narrative. The K40c achieves the 61st percentile among all GPUs in its single Geekbench OpenCL test, while the RTX PRO 6000 sits at the 59th percentile in its 3DMark Steel Nomad test. These percentiles are not directly comparable across different benchmark suites, but they indicate that the K40c remains competitive within its test environment, trading blows with modern entry-level and midrange GPUs. The RTX PRO 6000, despite its massive raw specs, scores within 1% of cards like the RX 5700 XT and Radeon PRO W7500 in its own benchmark.

For users requiring maximum compute density, ray tracing, tensor operations, or large memory footprints, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is the only viable choice — the K40c cannot execute RT or tensor workloads at all. For legacy compute tasks that fit within 12 GB of memory and do not need modern APIs, the K40c’s benchmark parity with contemporary cards suggests it may still handle certain OpenCL workloads adequately. But the 12-year gap in release dates and the K40c’s end-of-life status mean software compatibility and driver support will increasingly favor the active RTX PRO 6000.

Where Each One Wins

RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell wins in:

• Raw compute throughput (126.0 TFLOPS FP32 vs 5.046 TFLOPS) — 25x advantage for FP32-heavy workloads
• Memory capacity (96 GB vs 12 GB) — essential for large models or datasets exceeding 12 GB
• Memory bandwidth (1.79 TB/s vs 288.4 GB/s) — critical for bandwidth-bound kernels
• FP16 compute (126.0 TFLOPS vs none) — enables mixed-precision AI workloads
• Ray tracing (188 RT cores vs none) — hardware-accelerated RT only on Blackwell
• Tensor operations (752 tensor cores vs none) — AI inference and training acceleration
• API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4) — modern software compatibility
• Display outputs (4x DisplayPort 2.1b vs none) — enables visual output and multi-monitor setups
• PCIe 5.0 x16 interface — doubled bandwidth for host-device transfers
• Active production status — continued availability and driver support

Tesla K40c wins in:

• Power efficiency — 245 W TDP vs 600 W TDP, requiring a 550 W PSU instead of 1000 W
• Physical footprint — 267 mm length vs 304 mm, fitting in shorter chassis
• Benchmark percentile — 61st percentile vs 59th (within different test suites)
• Launch MSRP — 7,699 USD vs 8,565 USD, a difference of 866 USD at launch
• Geekbench OpenCL parity with modern cards — within 1% of the RTX 4060, showing sustained compute relevance

The K40c’s wins are all practical or cost-related rather than performance-based. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell dominates every performance category that matters for modern compute, AI, and graphics workloads. The K40c remains a historical footnote — a capable card for its era that now finds itself competitive only in narrow OpenCL scenarios against entry-level hardware.