NVIDIA Tesla K40m vs NVIDIA TITAN Xp Comparison

NVIDIA’s Tesla K40m and TITAN Xp represent two distinct eras of GPU computing, separated by over three years of architectural evolution. The data shows a stark generational gap: the TITAN Xp dominates the sole shared benchmark, yet the K40m holds its own in specific professional contexts. This analysis breaks down where each card wins, why their architectures differ so fundamentally, and what the numbers reveal about their respective positions in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous in raw compute: the TITAN Xp wins the only direct head-to-head comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 72,585 against the K40m’s 19,885. That is a 72.6% delta in the TITAN Xp’s favor, a margin so large it effectively places the two cards in different performance tiers. The TITAN Xp’s average benchmark score of 19,177 across its broader suite further underscores its versatility, while the K40m’s single score of 19,885 shows it is competitive in that one specific workload but lacks the breadth of testing.

However, the K40m’s win condition is not raw speed but specialization. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W7000 (19,905, just 0.1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, 0.6% behind), placing it in a cluster of professional and mid-range cards. The TITAN Xp, conversely, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (19,164, 0.1% behind) and the Tesla K20m (19,089, 0.5% behind), indicating that its average score is dragged down by less demanding DirectX tests while its OpenCL result is extraordinary. For users prioritizing compute density in a single metric, the TITAN Xp is the clear victor. For those needing a card that aligns with older Kepler-era software stacks or specific ECC-like professional workloads (though ECC is not listed), the K40m’s 65th percentile versus the TITAN Xp’s 64th percentile shows they are statistically peers in overall database ranking.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm is vast. The K40m uses the GK110B chip on a 28 nm process with 7,080 million transistors packed into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The TITAN Xp uses the GP102 chip on a 16 nm process, with 11,800 million transistors in a smaller 471 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.1 million per mm². That density advantage is the core of the TITAN Xp’s performance lead, allowing for 3,840 shading units versus the K40m’s 2,880, and double the ROPs (96 vs 48). TMU counts are identical at 240, but the TITAN Xp’s clocks are far higher: 1,405 MHz base and 1,582 MHz boost versus the K40m’s 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost.

Memory subsystems diverge sharply. Both have 12 GB and a 384-bit bus, but the K40m uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective for 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the TITAN Xp uses GDDR5X at 11.4 Gbps effective, nearly doubling bandwidth to 547.6 GB/s. The K40m’s FP32 output is 5.046 TFLOPS, while the TITAN Xp reaches 12.15 TFLOPS. The TITAN Xp also lists FP16 at 189.8 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a figure absent for the K40m. Power envelopes are similar—245 W for the K40m versus 250 W for the TITAN Xp—but the TITAN Xp requires a 600 W suggested PSU versus 550 W for the K40m, and it has explicit power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin) where the K40m lists none. The K40m has no display outputs, while the TITAN Xp offers 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support also differs: the K40m supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the TITAN Xp supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The TITAN Xp has an average benchmark score of 19,177 across ten tests, while the K40m has an average score of 19,885 from a single Geekbench OpenCL run. The TITAN Xp’s average is lower because it includes less intensive DirectX tests, but its OpenCL score is over 3.6 times higher.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The TITAN Xp provides 547.6 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5X memory at 11.4 Gbps effective, while the K40m provides 288.4 GB/s using GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective. Both use a 384-bit bus and 12 GB capacity.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The TITAN Xp’s 16 nm process yields 25.1 million transistors per mm², nearly double the K40m’s 12.6 million per mm² on 28 nm. The TITAN Xp has 11,800 million transistors total versus 7,080 million for the K40m.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. The K40m was released on 2013-11-21 and is end-of-life, with a successor in Tesla Maxwell. The TITAN Xp was released on 2017-04-05 and is also end-of-life, with a successor in GeForce 20.

Q: Which card has better DirectX support?

A: The TITAN Xp supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K40m supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The TITAN Xp also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.175).

Q: How do their launch MSRPs compare?

A: The K40m had a launch MSRP of 7,699 USD, while the TITAN Xp had a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD. This reflects their different positioning: professional compute versus enthusiast consumer.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla K40m | NVIDIA TITAN Xp |

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

| Chip | GK110B | GP102 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Pascal |

| Generation | Tesla Kepler (Kxx) | GeForce 10 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 745 MHz | 1405 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 876 MHz | 1582 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz / 6 Gbps effective | 1426 MHz / 11.4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 547.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2880 | 3840 |

| ROPs | 48 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 52.56 GPixel/s | 151.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 210.2 GTexel/s | 379.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.046 TFLOPS | 12.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | null | 189.8 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 245 W | 250 W |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 600 W |

| Power Connectors | null | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length | 267 mm length, 112 mm height, 40 mm width |

| Release Date | 2013-11-21 | 2017-04-05 |

| Predecessor | Tesla Fermi | GeForce 900 |

| Successor | Tesla Maxwell | GeForce 20 |

| Launch MSRP | 7,699 USD | 1,199 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a landslide. The TITAN Xp scores 72,585 against the K40m’s 19,885, a delta of -72.6% from the TITAN Xp’s perspective. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a 3.65x increase in raw compute throughput. The TITAN Xp’s FP32 rating of 12.15 TFLOPS versus 5.046 TFLOPS for the K40m explains the gap, as does its 547.6 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 288.4 GB/s. The TITAN Xp’s boost clock of 1,582 MHz versus 876 MHz for the K40m further compounds the difference.

However, the K40m’s single score of 19,885 is not trivial—it matches or beats several modern mid-range cards, as shown by its nearest rivals. The K40m beats the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765) by 0.6% and the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637) by 1.3%, while trailing the AMD FirePro W7000 (19,905) by just 0.1%. The TITAN Xp, despite its massive OpenCL win, has an average score of 19,177 that is nearly identical to the K40m’s single score, because its DirectX tests (PassMark scores ranging from 69 in DX12 to 226 in DX9) drag down the average. That creates a paradox: the TITAN Xp is vastly superior in compute, yet statistically tied in overall percentile ranking (64th vs 65th). The data suggests the K40m was optimized for a narrow professional workload, while the TITAN Xp is a generalist with explosive compute headroom. For buyers in the database era, the TITAN Xp is the unambiguous performance pick, but the K40m’s 7,699 USD launch MSRP and Kepler-specific software support make it a historical curiosity rather than a practical alternative.