AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40m Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Tesla K40m and the AMD Radeon Pro 460: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Tesla K40m scores 19,885, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 scores 15,284. That gives the Tesla K40m a 30.1% advantage, a decisive margin in raw compute throughput.

To contextualize that result, the Tesla K40m sits in the 65th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon Pro 460 lands in the 61st percentile. The gap is narrow in percentile terms, but the head-to-head delta is substantial. The Tesla K40m’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W7000 at 19,905 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19,765 (0.6% behind), the AMD FirePro D300 at 19,637 (1.3% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 at 19,602 (1.4% behind). The Radeon Pro 460’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40c at 17,468 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17,551 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon 780M at 17,588 (0.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17,639 (0.7% ahead). The Radeon Pro 460’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 17,509, which is noticeably lower than its OpenCL-only result in this comparison.

The Tesla K40m wins the only shared test outright, and the data shows no benchmark where the Radeon Pro 460 takes the lead. However, the Radeon Pro 460 has additional benchmark entries for Metal and Vulkan, scoring 20,426 and 16,816 respectively. Those tests were not run on the Tesla K40m, so they do not factor into the head-to-head comparison, but they indicate that the Radeon Pro 460 performs differently depending on the API. Its Metal score is the highest of its three recorded results, surpassing even the Tesla K40m’s OpenCL score, while its Vulkan score falls between its OpenCL and Metal numbers.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K40m scores 19,885 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 30.1% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 460’s score of 15,284.

Q: How does the Radeon Pro 460 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Radeon Pro 460’s average benchmark score is 17,509. It trails the NVIDIA Tesla K40c by 0.2%, the AMD Radeon Pro 560 by 0.2%, the AMD Radeon 780M by 0.5%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 by 0.7%.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 460 have any benchmark where it outperforms the Tesla K40m?

A: In the recorded head-to-head data, no. The only shared test is OpenCL, where the Tesla K40m wins. However, the Radeon Pro 460 does have a Metal score of 20,426, which is higher than the Tesla K40m’s OpenCL score, but those tests are not directly comparable.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The Tesla K40m is in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 460 is in the 61st percentile.

Q: How does the Tesla K40m rank against its nearest rivals?

A: The Tesla K40m is effectively tied with the AMD FirePro W7000, which is 0.1% ahead. It leads the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT by 0.6%, the AMD FirePro D300 by 1.3%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 by 1.4%.

Q: What is the Radeon Pro 460’s average benchmark score?

A: The Radeon Pro 460 has an average benchmark score of 17,509, which includes its OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan results.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla K40m wins in raw compute workloads that rely on OpenCL. Its 30.1% lead over the Radeon Pro 460 in that test is the clearest differentiator in the data. The Tesla K40m also holds a higher overall percentile ranking at 65 versus 61, meaning it sits above more of the database’s GPU population in aggregate performance. For compute-heavy tasks such as scientific simulation, data processing, or any workload that uses OpenCL directly, the Tesla K40m is the stronger choice based on measured results.

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 wins in API coverage and portability. It has recorded scores across three APIs, including a strong Metal result of 20,426, which suggests it is better suited to environments that use Metal, such as macOS applications. Its Vulkan score of 16,816 also indicates functional Vulkan support, whereas the Tesla K40m has no recorded Vulkan benchmark. The Radeon Pro 460 is also a much lower-power part, with a TDP of 35 W compared to 245 W, and it uses no power connectors, making it viable for compact or integrated systems. The Tesla K40m, by contrast, is a dual-slot card with a suggested PSU of 550 W and no display outputs, so it belongs in a server or workstation chassis, not a portable device.

In terms of benchmark wins, the Tesla K40m takes 1 win in the head-to-head comparison, while the Radeon Pro 460 takes 0. That is the only metric where wins are directly counted.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ substantially in nearly every specification category. The Tesla K40m uses 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 460 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 81.28 GB/s. That is a large gap in both capacity and bandwidth, and it explains why the Tesla K40m excels in memory-heavy workloads.

The Tesla K40m has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Radeon Pro 460 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The Tesla K40m’s pixel rate is 52.56 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 210.2 GTexel/s. The Radeon Pro 460’s pixel rate is 14.51 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 58.05 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the Tesla K40m delivers 5.046 TFLOPS FP32, while the Radeon Pro 460 delivers 1.858 TFLOPS FP32. The Radeon Pro 460 does have FP16 capability at 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Tesla K40m has no listed FP16 figure.

Clock speeds also differ. The Tesla K40m runs at a base of 745 MHz and a boost of 876 MHz, with memory at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Radeon Pro 460 runs at a base of 850 MHz and a boost of 907 MHz, with memory at 1,270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). Despite lower raw clock speeds, the Tesla K40m’s much larger compute and memory pipeline produces far higher throughput.

The bus interface differs as well: the Tesla K40m uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Tesla K40m is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, while the Radeon Pro 460 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no listed dimensions. The Tesla K40m has no display outputs, while the Radeon Pro 460’s display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Tesla K40m is built on the GK110B chip, using the Kepler architecture, and is part of the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.6M per mm². The Radeon Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip, based on GCN 4.0 architecture, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) generation. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density is 24.4M per mm², which is nearly double that of the Tesla K40m, reflecting the newer process node.

The Tesla K40m supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Radeon Pro 460 has a more recent Vulkan version and a higher DirectX feature level. The Tesla K40m’s predecessor is Tesla Fermi, and its successor is Tesla Maxwell. The Radeon Pro 460 has no listed predecessor or successor.

The Tesla K40m was released on 2013-11-21, and the Radeon Pro 460 was released on 2016-10-29. Both are end-of-life products. The Tesla K40m has a launch MSRP of 7,699 USD, while the Radeon Pro 460 has no listed launch MSRP. The Tesla K40m uses a 245 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon Pro 460 uses only 35 W and requires no power connectors. The Tesla K40m has no power connector listing, while the Radeon Pro 460 explicitly lists none.

The Verdict

The data is clear for compute-centric users: the NVIDIA Tesla K40m is the stronger GPU for OpenCL workloads, with a 30.1% lead in the head-to-head test and a higher percentile ranking. Its 12 GB memory buffer, 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 5.046 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it a capable choice for tasks that demand sustained throughput, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. The Tesla K40m’s nearest rivals are all within 1.4% of its score, which suggests it is well-positioned among its contemporary peers.

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 is the better fit for portable or low-power systems. Its 35 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and IGP form factor mean it can be deployed in devices where the Tesla K40m physically cannot fit. Its Metal score of 20,426 is the highest individual benchmark result in this comparison, so for Metal-based applications, the Radeon Pro 460 may actually deliver better real-world performance despite losing the OpenCL test. Its Vulkan 1.3 support also gives it modern API coverage that the Tesla K40m lacks.

The choice depends on the workload and the platform. If the task is OpenCL-heavy and the system can accommodate a dual-slot, 245 W accelerator with no display outputs, the Tesla K40m is the data-backed winner. If the task runs on Metal or Vulkan, or if the system is a laptop or compact desktop, the Radeon Pro 460 is the only viable option between the two, and its benchmark results show it is a competent performer in those APIs. Neither GPU is current, but the Tesla K40m remains the compute powerhouse, while the Radeon Pro 460 offers efficiency and API versatility.