
GRID RTX6000-8Q vs Tesla K40c

GRID RTX6000-8Q
Popular choices:

Tesla K40c
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Tesla K40c
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID RTX6000-8Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.4% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla K40c.
| Insight | GRID RTX6000-8Q | Tesla K40c |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID RTX6000-8Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID RTX6000-8Q holds the technical lead. Priced at $500 (vs $500), it costs 0% less, resulting in a 0.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID RTX6000-8Q | Tesla K40c |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+0.4%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GRID RTX6000-8Q and Tesla K40c

GRID RTX6000-8Q
The GRID RTX6000-8Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 557 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,514 points.

Tesla K40c
The Tesla K40c is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 8 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 745 MHz to 876 MHz. It has 2880 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 245W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,495 points. Launch price was $7,699.
Graphics Performance
The GRID RTX6000-8Q scores 4,514 and the Tesla K40c reaches 4,495 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID RTX6000-8Q is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Tesla K40c uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,048 (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs 2,880 (Tesla K40c). Raw compute: 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs 5.046 TFLOPS (Tesla K40c). Boost clocks: 1178 MHz vs 876 MHz.
| Feature | GRID RTX6000-8Q | Tesla K40c |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,514 | 4,495 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048 | 2880+41% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.825 TFLOPS | 5.046 TFLOPS+5% |
| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz+34% | 876 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+33% | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 240+88% |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB+220% | 240 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+33% | 1.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID RTX6000-8Q | Tesla K40c |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs 1.5 MB (Tesla K40c) — the GRID RTX6000-8Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID RTX6000-8Q | Tesla K40c |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+33% | 1.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12_2 (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs 11_0 (Tesla K40c). Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 0.
| Feature | GRID RTX6000-8Q | Tesla K40c |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12_2+9% | 11_0 |
| Max Displays | 0 | 0 |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID RTX6000-8Q draws 225W versus the Tesla K40c's 245W — a 8.5% difference. The GRID RTX6000-8Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs 350W (Tesla K40c). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GRID RTX6000-8Q | Tesla K40c |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W-8% | 245W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 267mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Perf/Watt | 20.1+10% | 18.3 |
Value Analysis
The GRID RTX6000-8Q launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the Tesla K40c launched at $7699 and now averages $500. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.0 (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs 9.0 (Tesla K40c) — the Tesla K40c offers 0% better value. The GRID RTX6000-8Q is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2013).
| Feature | GRID RTX6000-8Q | Tesla K40c |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $7699 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.0 | 9.0 |
| Codename | GM204 | GK180 |
| Release | August 30 2015 | October 8 2013 |
| Ranking | #505 | #465 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












