Tesla K40m vs Radeon Pro W6600X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6600X and Tesla K40m, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro W6600X outperforms K40m by a whopping 318% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 201 | 586 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.76 | 0.06 |
| Power efficiency | 20.29 | 2.38 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Navi 23 | GK110B |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 August 2021 (5 years ago) | 22 November 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $7,699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro W6600X has 31167% better value for money than Tesla K40m.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 2880 |
| Core clock speed | 2068 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2479 MHz | 876 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,060 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 245 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 317.3 | 210.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.15 TFLOPS | 5.046 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 240 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1536 KB |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.48 | 7.54 |
| Recency | 3 August 2021 | 22 November 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 245 Watt |
Pro W6600X has a 318% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 104% lower power consumption.
Tesla K40m, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon Pro W6600X is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K40m in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
