GeForce RTX 5050 vs Tesla M40
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M40 with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms Tesla M40 by an impressive 98% 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 | 247 | 77 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 100.00 |
| Power efficiency | 7.35 | 28.04 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | GB207 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 November 2015 (9 years ago) | 24 June 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 3072 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 948 MHz | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1112 MHz | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 213.5 | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.832 TFLOPS | 13.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 32 |
| TMUs | 192 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 5.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 8-pin EPS | 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 |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 24.12 | 47.87 |
| Recency | 10 November 2015 | 24 June 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 130 Watt |
Tesla M40 has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX 5050, on the other hand, has a 98.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla M40 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M40 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5050 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.
