GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 and AMD Radeon Pro 5300 occupy nearly the same position in the aggregate benchmark hierarchy, yet their performance profiles diverge sharply depending on the workload. The average benchmark score for the Tesla M40 is 41897, while the Radeon Pro 5300 sits at 41610, a gap of only 0.7% in favor of the NVIDIA part. Both cards rank in the 84th and 83rd percentiles of all GPUs, respectively, placing them in the same performance tier overall. However, the head-to-head results reveal that this similarity is superficial; the Tesla M40 dominates in the two shared tests, while the Radeon Pro 5300 has an additional benchmark result that showcases a different strength.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards share only two benchmark tests in the data: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In the OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Tesla M40 scores 39192, edging out the AMD Radeon Pro 5300’s 38720 by a margin of 1.2%. This is a narrow victory, indicating that in compute workloads using the OpenCL API, the two cards are nearly interchangeable, with the Tesla M40 holding a slight but consistent advantage. The difference is well within the range of run-to-run variance one might expect, yet it still counts as a win for the NVIDIA card.

The Vulkan test tells a completely different story. Here, the Tesla M40 scores 44602, while the Radeon Pro 5300 manages only 35915. That translates to a 24.2% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a substantial lead that dwarfs the OpenCL result. This suggests that the Maxwell architecture’s Vulkan implementation, paired with its larger memory subsystem and higher raw shading throughput, is far more effective in this API’s workload patterns. The Radeon Pro 5300’s RDNA 1.0 architecture, while newer, does not translate that generational advantage into Vulkan performance in this comparison.

It is worth noting that the Radeon Pro 5300 has a third benchmark result not shared with the Tesla M40: a Geekbench Metal score of 50195. This is the highest single-test score for either card, exceeding the Tesla M40’s best result (44602 in Vulkan) by 12.5%. However, since the Tesla M40 has no Metal benchmark in the data, this cannot be compared directly. The presence of this result does indicate that the Radeon Pro 5300 has a distinct performance profile in Apple’s Metal API, which is relevant for macOS-based workflows.

The wins tally is clear: the Tesla M40 wins 2 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Radeon Pro 5300 wins 0. This is not a close contest in the shared tests. The aggregate scores are close only because the Radeon Pro 5300’s Metal result (50195) pulls its average up, masking its weakness in Vulkan and its slight deficit in OpenCL.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Tesla M40 is the superior choice for OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. In OpenCL, it leads by 1.2%, which is modest but consistent. In Vulkan, the lead expands to 24.2%, making the Tesla M40 the clear pick for any application that leverages Vulkan for rendering or compute. This includes modern game engines, CAD visualization tools, and scientific visualization software that has adopted Vulkan as a cross-platform API. The Tesla M40’s higher pixel rate (106.8 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.5 GTexel/s versus 132.0 GTexel/s) support this advantage, as these raw throughput figures are more than sufficient to feed the Vulkan pipeline.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 wins in one specific area: Metal performance. Its Geekbench Metal score of 50195 is the highest recorded for either card in any test. This is particularly relevant for users in the Apple ecosystem, given the Radeon Pro Mac generation designation. The card’s FP16 performance of 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1) also suggests strong half-precision compute capability, which is not present in the Tesla M40’s spec sheet (FP16 is listed as null). For applications that rely on Metal for GPU acceleration, such as Final Cut Pro, Blender’s Metal backend, or other macOS-native creative tools, the Radeon Pro 5300 is the better fit, even though its OpenCL and Vulkan scores lag.

The Radeon Pro 5300 also wins on efficiency in a practical sense: its TDP is 85 W versus the Tesla M40’s 250 W. While power consumption is not a benchmark score, the data shows that the AMD part achieves 83% of the Tesla M40’s aggregate performance (41610 versus 41897) at roughly one-third of the power draw. This makes it a more suitable option for systems with limited power budgets, such as all-in-one Macs or compact workstations, where the Tesla M40’s 600 W suggested PSU would be prohibitive.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two cards is immense, reflecting their different release eras. The NVIDIA Tesla M40 is built on the GM200 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,000 million transistors onto a 601 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.3M / mm². The Radeon Pro 5300, by contrast, uses the Navi 14 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 6,400 million transistors on a much smaller 158 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 40.5M / mm², more than triple that of the Tesla M40.

The core configurations differ dramatically. The Tesla M40 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 5300 has only 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer than half the shading units, the Radeon Pro 5300’s higher boost clock of 1650 MHz (versus 1112 MHz for the Tesla M40) helps narrow the FP32 gap: the Tesla M40 delivers 6.832 TFLOPS, while the Radeon Pro 5300 delivers 4.224 TFLOPS. The Tesla M40 still leads by 61.8% in raw FP32 throughput, but the AMD card is more efficient per clock.

Memory subsystems also diverge. The Tesla M40 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s. The Tesla M40’s bandwidth advantage is 28.8%, which is significant for memory-bound workloads. The Radeon Pro 5300 compensates with newer GDDR6 memory running at 14 Gbps effective, versus 6 Gbps for the GDDR5 on the Tesla M40, but the narrower bus limits overall throughput.

The Radeon Pro 5300 also supports FP16 compute at 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature entirely absent from the Tesla M40’s specifications. This makes the AMD card more versatile for mixed-precision workloads, such as machine learning inference or certain image processing tasks. The Tesla M40 has no FP16 capability listed.

Interface and power delivery differ as well. The Tesla M40 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro 5300 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The AMD card’s newer bus standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, which can benefit data transfer in supported systems. The Tesla M40 is a dual-slot card with an 8-pin EPS power connector, whereas the Radeon Pro 5300 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, drawing all its power from the motherboard slot.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and platform. For pure compute or rendering tasks using OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA Tesla M40 is the superior card. Its 24.2% lead in Vulkan and 1.2% lead in OpenCL, combined with higher pixel rate, texture rate, and memory bandwidth, make it the stronger performer in these APIs. Users running Linux or Windows workstations with Vulkan-based applications will see measurably better results with the Tesla M40.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 is the better choice for Metal-centric environments. Its Geekbench Metal score of 50195 is the highest single benchmark result in this comparison, and its FP16 capability and lower power draw (85 W versus 250 W) make it more suitable for macOS systems or compact form factors where the Tesla M40’s dual-slot design and 600 W PSU requirement are impractical. The Radeon Pro 5300 also offers a more modern feature set with PCIe 4.0 support.

For users who prioritize raw performance in shared APIs, the Tesla M40 wins outright. For those who need Metal support, lower power consumption, or FP16 compute, the Radeon Pro 5300 is the logical selection. Neither card is a universal winner; the choice hinges entirely on the software stack and system constraints.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 has an average benchmark score of 41897, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 scores 41610, a difference of 0.7% in favor of the Tesla M40.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Tesla M40 scores 44602 versus the Radeon Pro 5300’s 35915, giving the NVIDIA card a 24.2% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 outperform the Tesla M40 in any benchmark?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300 has a Geekbench Metal score of 50195, which is higher than any Tesla M40 benchmark result, but the Tesla M40 has no Metal test for direct comparison.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Tesla M40 provides 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the Radeon Pro 5300 offers 224.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, a 28.8% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Tesla M40 achieves 6.832 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 4.224 TFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 5300, a lead of 61.8% for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Pro 5300 additionally has a Geekbench Metal result, indicating Metal support, while the Tesla M40 has no listed Metal benchmark.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla M40 | AMD Radeon Pro 5300 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 948 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1112 MHz | 1650 MHz |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 192 | 80 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| FP32 Performance | 6.832 TFLOPS | 4.224 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | N/A | 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 106.8 GPixel/s | 52.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.5 GTexel/s | 132.0 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 250 W | 85 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Release Date | 2015-11-09 | 2020-08-03 |