AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison
AMD Radeon RX 480
Tesla M40
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA Tesla M40
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The recorded data shows a narrow split between these two cards. Across the two shared benchmark tests, each card claims one victory, and the margins are close in both directions. The NVIDIA Tesla M40 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 39192 against the AMD Radeon RX 480’s 37998, a 3.1 percent advantage. The AMD card answers in the Geekbench Vulkan test, posting 45968 against the Tesla M40’s 44602, a 3 percent lead. Neither card dominates the other in these head-to-head results; the wins are almost mirror images in magnitude.
The OpenCL result favors the Tesla M40, and the margin, while modest, is consistent with the card’s compute-oriented design. The Geekbench Vulkan result flips the outcome, with the RX 480 taking a nearly identical lead. When averaged across all benchmarks in the database, the Tesla M40 sits at 41897, while the RX 480 averages 33997. That gap, roughly 23 percent, is much larger than the head-to-head deltas suggest, and it reflects the fact that the two cards were tested across different benchmark suites. The Tesla M40’s average is pulled up by its two recorded results, while the RX 480’s average includes a Metal score of 51057, an OpenCL score of 37998, a Vulkan score of 45968, and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 966. The 3DMark result, a modern DirectX 12 workload, drags the RX 480’s average down substantially.
Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the Tesla M40 sits in a competitive cluster. It is 0.5 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB, 1.7 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, and 2.5 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300. The only rival that beats it in the recorded list is the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE, which leads by 1.9 percent. The RX 480, by contrast, sits in a lower performance tier. It is 0.1 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 7950, 0.4 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7700S, and 0.5 percent behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT and NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning the RX 480 is effectively bracketed by a tight group of similarly performing cards.
The percentile ranking reinforces this picture. The Tesla M40 ranks in the 83rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the RX 480 ranks in the 78th percentile. That five-point gap in percentile placement matches the overall average score difference, even if the head-to-head tests alone do not show a clear winner. The Tesla M40 is the stronger card in aggregate, but the RX 480 is not far behind in the two tests where both were measured directly.
FAQ
Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?
A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 wins, scoring 39192 against the AMD Radeon RX 480’s 37998. The margin is 3.1 percent.
Q: Which card wins in Geekbench Vulkan?
A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins, scoring 45968 against the NVIDIA Tesla M40’s 44602. The margin is 3 percent.
Q: How do the two cards compare in average benchmark score?
A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 has an average benchmark score of 41897, while the AMD Radeon RX 480 averages 33997. The Tesla M40 leads by roughly 23 percent in aggregate.
Q: What is the RX 480’s strongest recorded benchmark result?
A: The RX 480 scores 51057 in Geekbench Metal, which is its highest recorded score. Its Vulkan score is 45968, its OpenCL score is 37998, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 966.
Q: How does the Tesla M40 compare to its nearest rivals?
A: The Tesla M40 is 0.5 percent ahead of the Tesla M40 24 GB, 1.7 percent ahead of the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, and 2.5 percent ahead of the Radeon Pro 5300. The Radeon RX 7650 GRE leads it by 1.9 percent.
Q: How does the RX 480 compare to its nearest rivals?
A: The RX 480 is 0.1 percent ahead of the Radeon HD 7950, 0.4 percent ahead of the Radeon RX 7700S, 0.4 percent behind the Radeon RX 560 XT, and 0.5 percent behind the RTX A2000 12 GB.
Where Each One Wins
The Tesla M40 wins in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. Its 3.1 percent head-to-head edge in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with a 6.832 TFLOPS FP32 rate, a 213.5 GTexel/s texture rate, and a 106.8 GPixel/s pixel rate, points to a card built for raw throughput. It also carries 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384 bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. That memory configuration gives it a clear capacity and bandwidth advantage for large data sets. The RX 480, with 8 GB on a 256 bit bus, offers 256.0 GB/s, which is lower in both respects. For workloads that demand large memory footprints, such as dense compute buffers or high-resolution textures, the Tesla M40 is the better fit.
The RX 480 wins in Vulkan-based workloads and in any scenario where the newer API implementation matters. Its 3 percent lead in Geekbench Vulkan is the direct evidence. The RX 480 also supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_0, while the Tesla M40 supports 12_1, so the Tesla has a slight API feature edge there, but the RX 480’s Vulkan score shows it extracts more performance from that API in practice. The RX 480 also has a notable advantage in FP16 throughput, listed at 5.834 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Tesla M40 has no recorded FP16 figure. Applications that use half-precision math will run at full rate on the RX 480.
The RX 480 is also the only one of the two with display outputs. It provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Tesla M40 has no outputs at all. That makes the RX 480 the only viable choice for a desktop system where the GPU must drive a monitor. The Tesla M40 is strictly a compute device, and the database confirms it cannot output video. For any user building a workstation that needs both acceleration and display connectivity, the RX 480 is the clear pick.
The Tesla M40 wins on generational efficiency of a different kind: it offers substantially higher memory bandwidth and pixel throughput despite its older 28 nm process. The RX 480 counters with a much smaller die, 232 mm² versus 601 mm², and a higher transistor density, 24.6M per mm² versus 13.3M per mm². The RX 480 also has a lower power draw at 150 W versus 250 W and a lower suggested PSU rating at 450 W versus 600 W. For systems with power constraints, the RX 480 is the safer choice.
Specification Differences
The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The Tesla M40 uses the GM200 chip built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, while the RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process. The Tesla M40 packs 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.3M per mm². The RX 480 contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, yielding 24.6M per mm². The RX 480’s process node is two generations newer in node size, and its density is roughly 85 percent higher.
Clock speeds favor the RX 480. Its base clock is 1120 MHz and its boost clock is 1266 MHz, compared to the Tesla M40’s 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the Tesla M40 runs its GDDR5 at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the RX 480 runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective. Despite the RX 480’s higher memory clock, the Tesla M40 has the higher memory bandwidth at 288.4 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s, because its 384 bit bus is 50 percent wider.
The compute unit counts differ as well. The Tesla M40 has 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The RX 480 has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla M40 leads in every count, especially ROPs, where it has three times the RX 480’s total. Pixel rate reflects that: 106.8 GPixel/s for the Tesla M40 versus 40.51 GPixel/s for the RX 480. Texture rate is closer, 213.5 GTexel/s versus 182.3 GTexel/s, but still in the Tesla M40’s favor. FP32 throughput also favors the Tesla M40 at 6.832 TFLOPS versus 5.834 TFLOPS. The RX 480 matches its FP32 rate in FP16 at 5.834 TFLOPS, while the Tesla M40 has no listed FP16 figure.
Power and physical specifications differ sharply. The Tesla M40 draws 250 W and requires an 8-pin EPS connector with a 600 W suggested PSU. The RX 480 draws 150 W, uses a single 6-pin connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards, but the Tesla M40 is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 240 mm (9.4 inches) for the RX 480. The RX 480 has listed height and width dimensions of 95 mm and 35 mm, while the Tesla M40 has no recorded height or width. The Tesla M40 has no display outputs, while the RX 480 offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.
Architecture Differences
The architectural split is clear: NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 versus AMD’s GCN 4.0. The Tesla M40 belongs to the Tesla Maxwell generation, code-named under the Mxx family, and its predecessor is Tesla Kepler with Tesla Pascal as its successor. The RX 480 belongs to the Arctic Islands generation under the RX 400 family, with Pirate Islands as its predecessor and Polaris as its successor. These are different design philosophies from different vendors, built at different foundries.
The Tesla M40’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture is built for high FP32 throughput and rasterization horsepower. Its 96 ROPs and 106.8 GPixel/s pixel rate are class-leading numbers for its era, and its 6.832 TFLOPS FP32 rate exceeds the RX 480’s 5.834 TFLOPS. The RX 480’s GCN 4.0 architecture, by contrast, emphasizes balanced compute with a 1:1 FP16 rate, a feature the Tesla M40 lacks entirely. GCN 4.0 also brings a more modern API profile: the RX 480 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, while the Tesla M40 supports 12_1, a higher feature level. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 480 supports Vulkan 1.3 while the Tesla M40 supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer version.
The node difference matters for efficiency. The RX 480’s 14 nm GlobalFoundries process allows a 232 mm² die with 5,700 million transistors and a density of 24.6M per mm². The Tesla M40’s 28 nm TSMC process requires a 601 mm² die for 8,000 million transistors, at a density of only 13.3M per mm². The smaller, denser RX 480 die achieves a 150 W TDP, while the larger, less dense Tesla M40 die requires 250 W. The RX 480 also benefits from a higher memory clock, 2000 MHz versus 1502 MHz, though the Tesla M40’s wider bus compensates in bandwidth.
The API support difference is worth noting. The Tesla M40 has a higher DirectX feature level, 12_1, and a newer Vulkan version, 1.4. The RX 480 has DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. In practice, the RX 480 still wins the Vulkan benchmark in the head-to-head test, which suggests its GCN 4.0 implementation is more efficient in that specific workload despite the older API version. The Tesla M40’s advantage in DirectX feature level may matter for specific rendering features, but the database does not include a DirectX 12 head-to-head test for the Tesla M40.
The Verdict
The data points to a clear split based on use case. For pure compute workloads, especially OpenCL, the NVIDIA Tesla M40 is the stronger card. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head by 3.1 percent, has a higher average benchmark score at 41897 versus 33997, ranks in the 83rd percentile versus the RX 480’s 78th, and offers 12 GB of memory with 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Its 6.832 TFLOPS FP32 rate, 96 ROPs, and 106.8 GPixel/s pixel rate give it a raw throughput advantage that shows up in aggregate scores. It also carries a higher DirectX feature level, 12_1, and a newer Vulkan version, 1.4. Anyone running compute-heavy workloads that scale with memory capacity and bandwidth will prefer the Tesla M40.
For Vulkan-based workloads and any desktop use case, the AMD Radeon RX 480 is the better choice. It wins the Geekbench Vulkan head-to-head by 3 percent, and it is the only card of the two with display outputs, offering 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Tesla M40 cannot drive a monitor at all. The RX 480 also has a 1:1 FP16 rate at 5.834 TFLOPS, which the Tesla M40 lacks, and it does all of this at 150 W with a 450 W suggested PSU, compared to the Tesla M40’s 250 W and 600 W. Its smaller 232 mm² die and higher transistor density of 24.6M per mm² show a more modern, efficient design.
The overall average benchmark score favors the Tesla M40 by a wide margin, but that gap is inflated by the RX 480’s weak 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 966. In the two tests where both cards were measured directly, the results are nearly even: a 3.1 percent win for the Tesla M40 in OpenCL and a 3 percent win for the RX 480 in Vulkan. The recorded data does not support a blanket recommendation for either card. Instead, it supports a workload-based decision. Compute users with large memory needs and no display requirement should choose the Tesla M40. Users who need a GPU for a desktop system, run Vulkan applications, or want half-precision compute should choose the RX 480. Both cards are end-of-life, but their benchmark profiles remain distinct.