Radeon R7 260X vs Tesla K40m

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.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Tesla K40m

#67

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $1450

99%

#122

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

1410%

#137

Tesla K40m

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#139

Radeon Pro V520

MSRP: $800|Avg: $300

95%

#140

Quadro T1000 (móvel)

MSRP: $500|Avg: $120

95%

#141

Quadro M5500

MSRP: $800|Avg: $200

94%

#142

Quadro K1200

MSRP: $300|Avg: $184

94%

#143

Quadro P400

MSRP: $169|Avg: $60

94%

#144

Radeon Pro WX 7100

MSRP: $799|Avg: $180

92%

#145

Quadro M520

MSRP: $200|Avg: $50

91%

#146

Radeon Sky 500

MSRP: $500|Avg: $500

90%

#147

Quadro M5000

MSRP: $999|Avg: $120

90%

#148

Radeon Pro WX 4100

MSRP: $399|Avg: $85

88%

#149

Quadro P4000 (móvel)

MSRP: $819|Avg: $290

87%

#151

FirePro M40003

MSRP: $150|Avg: $72

87%

#152

Radeon Pro 465

MSRP: $500|Avg: $150

87%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon R7 260X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.7% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla K40m.

Insight	Radeon R7 260X	Tesla K40m
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+1.7%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.7%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon R7 260X remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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.

Radeon R7 260X Benchmark Check

Tesla K40m Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R7 260X and Tesla K40m

Radeon R7 260X

The Radeon R7 260X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 8 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 115W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,198 points. Launch price was $139.

Tesla K40m

The Tesla K40m is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 22 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: 3,143 points. Launch price was $7,699.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon R7 260X scores 3,198 and the Tesla K40m reaches 3,143 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R7 260X is built on GCN 2.0 while the Tesla K40m uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 896 (Radeon R7 260X) vs 2,880 (Tesla K40m). Raw compute: 1.971 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 260X) vs 5.046 TFLOPS (Tesla K40m). Boost clocks: 1000 MHz vs 876 MHz.

Feature	Radeon R7 260X	Tesla K40m
G3D Mark Score	3,198+2%	3,143
Architecture	GCN 2.0	Kepler
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	2880+221%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.971 TFLOPS	5.046 TFLOPS+156%
Boost Clock	1000 MHz+14%	876 MHz
ROPs	16	48+200%
TMUs	56	240+329%
L1 Cache	224 KB	240 KB+7%
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	1.5 MB+500%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R7 260X	Tesla K40m
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 260X) vs 1.5 MB (Tesla K40m) — the Tesla K40m has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon R7 260X	Tesla K40m
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	1.5 MB+500%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R7 260X draws 115W versus the Tesla K40m's 245W — a 72.2% difference. The Radeon R7 260X is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon R7 260X) vs 350W (Tesla K40m). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	Radeon R7 260X	Tesla K40m
TDP	115W-53%	245W
Recommended PSU	500W	350W-30%
Power Connector	1x 6-pin	PCIe-powered
Length	170mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	—
Temp (Load)	80	—
Perf/Watt	27.8+117%	12.8