Tesla P40 vs GeForce GTX 680M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M with Tesla P40, including specs and performance data.
P40 outperforms 680M by a whopping 261% 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 | 561 | 228 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.48 | 1.05 |
| Power efficiency | 6.01 | 8.67 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GP102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 13 September 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $310.50 | $5,699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 680M has 41% better value for money than Tesla P40.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1344 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 719 MHz | 1303 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 758 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 11,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 84.90 | 367.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.038 TFLOPS | 11.76 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 96 |
| TMUs | 112 | 240 |
| L1 Cache | 112 KB | 1.4 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 3 MB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 8-pin EPS |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1808 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 347.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 67
−258%
| 240−250
+258%
|
| Full HD | 64
−259%
| 230−240
+259%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.85
+411%
| 24.78
−411%
|
- GTX 680M has 411% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−241%
|
140−150
+241%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−241%
|
140−150
+241%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−244%
|
110−120
+244%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−260%
|
90−95
+260%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−254%
|
170−180
+254%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−254%
|
85−90
+254%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−245%
|
100−105
+245%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−254%
|
290−300
+254%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−241%
|
140−150
+241%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 128
−252%
|
450−500
+252%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−250%
|
210−220
+250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−244%
|
110−120
+244%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−260%
|
90−95
+260%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−254%
|
170−180
+254%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−254%
|
85−90
+254%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−245%
|
100−105
+245%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−245%
|
100−105
+245%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−257%
|
75−80
+257%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−254%
|
290−300
+254%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−250%
|
210−220
+250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−244%
|
110−120
+244%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−260%
|
90−95
+260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−245%
|
100−105
+245%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−257%
|
75−80
+257%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−254%
|
290−300
+254%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
−254%
|
170−180
+254%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−233%
|
50−55
+233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−244%
|
210−220
+244%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−249%
|
150−160
+249%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−237%
|
300−310
+237%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−253%
|
60−65
+253%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
−233%
|
50−55
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−242%
|
65−70
+242%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−218%
|
35−40
+218%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−242%
|
65−70
+242%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−241%
|
140−150
+241%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−245%
|
100−105
+245%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−246%
|
45−50
+246%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
This is how GTX 680M and Tesla P40 compete in popular games:
- Tesla P40 is 258% faster in 900p
- Tesla P40 is 259% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.83 | 28.23 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 13 September 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 250 Watt |
GTX 680M has 150% lower power consumption.
Tesla P40, on the other hand, has a 260.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla P40 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M is a notebook graphics card while Tesla P40 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
