Radeon RX 6600 vs Tesla K40m
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K40m with Radeon RX 6600, including specs and performance data.
RX 6600 outperforms K40m by a whopping 380% 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 | 572 | 151 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 16 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | 55.20 |
| Power efficiency | 2.35 | 20.97 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 November 2013 (12 years ago) | 13 October 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $7,699 | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 6600 has 110300% better value for money than Tesla K40m.
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 | 2880 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 745 MHz | 1626 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 876 MHz | 2491 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 245 Watt | 132 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 210.2 | 279.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.046 TFLOPS | 8.928 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 240 | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 448 KB |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 190 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| 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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 21−24
−405%
| 106
+405%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
−450%
| 55
+450%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−400%
| 30
+400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 366.62
−11712%
| 3.10
+11712%
|
| 1440p | 769.90
−12771%
| 5.98
+12771%
|
| 4K | 1283.17
−11601%
| 10.97
+11601%
|
- RX 6600 has 11712% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6600 has 12771% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6600 has 11601% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 345
+0%
|
345
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 303
+0%
|
303
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 150
+0%
|
150
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 142
+0%
|
142
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 149
+0%
|
149
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 137
+0%
|
137
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how Tesla K40m and RX 6600 compete in popular games:
- RX 6600 is 405% faster in 1080p
- RX 6600 is 450% faster in 1440p
- RX 6600 is 400% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.51 | 36.06 |
| Recency | 22 November 2013 | 13 October 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 245 Watt | 132 Watt |
Tesla K40m has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 6600, on the other hand, has a 380.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 85.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K40m in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla K40m is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6600 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
