AMD Radeon Pro Duo vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 and AMD Radeon Pro Duo are both end-of-life workstation cards from the same 28 nm TSMC generation, but they take fundamentally different approaches. The data shows a clear winner in the single recorded head-to-head benchmark, yet the specification sheets reveal why each card existed for different purposes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this workload, the NVIDIA Tesla M40 scores 39,192 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro Duo scores 35,860 points. The delta is 9.3% in favor of the Tesla M40. This is a meaningful margin, not a marginal one. A 9.3% lead in a compute API like OpenCL suggests the M40's Maxwell architecture extracts more usable performance from its hardware in this specific test.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the significance of this result. The Tesla M40's average benchmark score is 41,897, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB, scores 41,707, a mere 0.5% difference. The M40 also sits 1.7% above the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (41,187) and 2.5% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (40,870). The only rival it trails in its immediate neighborhood is the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE, which scores 42,723, putting the M40 1.9% behind.

The Radeon Pro Duo's average score is simply its single OpenCL result of 35,860, placing it in the 80th percentile. Its nearest rivals show a tighter cluster: the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 scores 35,520 (1% behind the Pro Duo), the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile scores 35,435 (1.2% behind), while the NVIDIA T1000 (36,289) and AMD Radeon RX 5300M (36,529) sit 1.2% and 1.8% ahead, respectively. This tells us the Pro Duo's raw OpenCL score is competitive within its own tier, but it is simply outmatched by the Tesla M40 in this direct matchup.

The 9.3% gap between the two cards is larger than any gap between either card and its own nearest rivals. In other words, the difference between the M40 and Pro Duo is not noise; it represents a genuine performance separation in OpenCL compute.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the NVIDIA Tesla M40 is the superior compute card. It wins the only head-to-head test, posts a higher average benchmark score (41,897 vs. 35,860), and ranks higher in the global percentile (83rd vs. 80th). For any workload that resembles the Geekbench OpenCL test, the M40 delivers roughly 9% more performance.

However, the Radeon Pro Duo should not be dismissed. Its specification sheet shows a card with a higher peak FP32 throughput (8.192 TFLOPS vs. 6.832 TFLOPS) and more shading units (4,096 vs. 3,072). The fact that it loses the OpenCL test despite these theoretical advantages suggests the M40's architecture is more efficient at translating raw hardware resources into actual benchmark performance. The Pro Duo also has a much wider memory bus (4,096 bit vs. 384 bit) and higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s vs. 288.4 GB/s), which could matter in memory-bound scenarios not captured by this single test.

The database records only one head-to-head benchmark, so the verdict must be cautious: on the recorded data, the Tesla M40 wins. The Pro Duo's higher theoretical compute and bandwidth leave open questions about workloads the current benchmark set does not cover.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 has an average benchmark score of 41,897, while the AMD Radeon Pro Duo's average is 35,860. The M40 also ranks in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Pro Duo's 80th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: The Tesla M40 scores 39,192 compared to the Pro Duo's 35,860, which is a 9.3% advantage for the M40.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro Duo have any theoretical advantages over the Tesla M40?

A: Yes. The Pro Duo has higher FP32 throughput (8.192 TFLOPS vs. 6.832 TFLOPS), more shading units (4,096 vs. 3,072), and significantly higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s vs. 288.4 GB/s).

Q: What is the closest rival to the Tesla M40?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB is the closest, with an average score of 41,707, a 0.5% difference from the standard M40.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Radeon Pro Duo?

A: The NVIDIA T1000 is the closest rival listed, scoring 36,289, which is 1.2% higher than the Pro Duo's score.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Tesla M40 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Radeon Pro Duo supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The Tesla M40 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro Duo uses 4 GB of HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The Pro Duo's memory clock is listed at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), while the M40's memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

The GPU clocks also differ. The Tesla M40 has a base clock of 948 MHz and a boost clock of 1112 MHz. The Radeon Pro Duo has no base or boost clock listed in the database. The M40 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. The Pro Duo has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, but only 64 render output units.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences: the M40 outputs 106.8 GPixel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s, while the Pro Duo outputs 64.00 GPixel/s and 256.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance favors the Pro Duo at 8.192 TFLOPS versus the M40's 6.832 TFLOPS. The Pro Duo also lists FP16 performance at 8.192 TFLOPS (1:1), while the M40 has no FP16 listing.

Power requirements differ substantially. The Tesla M40 has a TDP of 250 W, uses a single 8-pin EPS power connector, and suggests a 600 W power supply. The Radeon Pro Duo has a TDP of 350 W, uses three 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 750 W power supply. Physical dimensions also vary: the M40 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, while the Pro Duo is 277 mm (10.9 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. The Pro Duo has display outputs (1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2), while the M40 has no display outputs.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on TSMC's 28 nm process, but their architectures diverged significantly. The Tesla M40 uses the GM200 chip with NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Tesla Maxwell generation. It contains 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.3 million per mm². The Radeon Pro Duo uses the Capsaicin chip with AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture, part of the Radeon Pro GCN generation. It contains 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die, yielding a slightly higher density of 14.9 million per mm².

The memory technologies reflect the generational split: the M40 uses conventional GDDR5, while the Pro Duo uses HBM, which explains the massive bandwidth advantage despite the smaller 4 GB capacity. The Pro Duo's FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 is a notable feature absent from the M40's specifications.

API support differs at the margins. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the M40 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Pro Duo supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0). The M40's slot width is dual-slot, and the Pro Duo's is also dual-slot. The M40's successor is listed as Tesla Pascal, while the Pro Duo's successor is Radeon Pro Polaris; the M40's predecessor is Tesla Kepler, and the Pro Duo's is FirePro GCN.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives a straightforward answer: the NVIDIA Tesla M40 wins in the recorded OpenCL test. It also wins on overall average score (41,897 vs. 35,860) and percentile rank (83rd vs. 80th). For any user whose primary workload mirrors Geekbench OpenCL, the M40 is the stronger choice by a 9.3% margin.

The Radeon Pro Duo wins on paper in several theoretical categories. Its FP32 throughput is 20% higher (8.192 TFLOPS vs. 6.832 TFLOPS), and its memory bandwidth is 78% higher (512.0 GB/s vs. 288.4 GB/s). It also has 33% more shading units (4,096 vs. 3,072) and 33% more texture units (256 vs. 192). These specifications suggest the Pro Duo could outperform the M40 in workloads that scale with raw compute throughput or memory bandwidth, such as certain rendering tasks or large dataset processing. The database does not include a benchmark that tests these specific strengths, so this remains an unverified hypothesis from the recorded data.

The M40 wins on power efficiency per the recorded TDP figures: it delivers its benchmark score at 250 W, while the Pro Duo requires 350 W. The M40 also has a lower suggested power supply (600 W vs. 750 W) and simpler power connector requirements (one 8-pin EPS vs. three 8-pin). For systems where power delivery is constrained, the M40 is the safer choice.

The Pro Duo's display outputs give it a clear functional advantage: it can drive up to four displays (1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort), while the M40 has no display outputs at all. This makes the Pro Duo viable for workstation setups requiring direct GPU-to-monitor connections, whereas the M40 requires a separate display adapter.

In summary, the data supports the Tesla M40 for compute-heavy workloads as measured by the benchmark, while the Radeon Pro Duo offers higher theoretical throughput and direct display connectivity, making it a candidate for workloads the current benchmark set does not cover.