Tesla M40 24GB vs RTX A1000
Tesla M40 24GB
Popular choices:
RTX A1000
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 Tesla M40 24GB
Performance Per Dollar RTX A1000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RTX A1000 is significantly newer (2024 vs 2015). The RTX A1000 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Tesla M40 24GB lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RTX A1000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.6% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla M40 24GB.
| Insight | Tesla M40 24GB | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🔮Strong Longevity (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Tesla M40 24GB offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $120 versus $500 for the RTX A1000, it costs 76% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 310% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Tesla M40 24GB | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+310%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($120) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) |
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 Tesla M40 24GB and RTX A1000
Tesla M40 24GB
The Tesla M40 24GB is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 10 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 948 MHz to 1112 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,641 points.
RTX A1000
The RTX A1000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 16 2024. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 727 MHz to 1462 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 18 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,814 points.
Graphics Performance
The Tesla M40 24GB scores 10,641 and the RTX A1000 reaches 10,814 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla M40 24GB is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the RTX A1000 uses Ampere, both on 28 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 3,072 (Tesla M40 24GB) vs 2,304 (RTX A1000). Raw compute: 6.832 TFLOPS (Tesla M40 24GB) vs 6.737 TFLOPS (RTX A1000). Boost clocks: 1112 MHz vs 1462 MHz.
| Feature | Tesla M40 24GB | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 10,641 | 10,814+2% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Ampere |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Shading Units | 3072+33% | 2304 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 6.832 TFLOPS+1% | 6.737 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1112 MHz | 1462 MHz+31% |
| ROPs | 96+200% | 32 |
| TMUs | 192+167% | 72 |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | 2.3 MB+109% |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+50% | 2 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Tesla M40 24GB | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 8 GB of GDDR6. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 3 MB (Tesla M40 24GB) vs 2 MB (RTX A1000) — the Tesla M40 24GB has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla M40 24GB | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+50% | 2 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Tesla M40 24GB) vs 12.2 (RTX A1000). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 4.
| Feature | Tesla M40 24GB | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.3+18% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 0 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 4.0 (2x) (Tesla M40 24GB) vs 7th Gen NVENC (RTX A1000). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP6 vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Tesla M40 24GB) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (RTX A1000).
| Feature | Tesla M40 24GB | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 4.0 (2x) | 7th Gen NVENC |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP6 | 5th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) |
Power & Dimensions
The Tesla M40 24GB draws 250W versus the RTX A1000's 50W — a 133.3% difference. The RTX A1000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Tesla M40 24GB) vs 500W (RTX A1000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 163mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Tesla M40 24GB | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 50W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 163mm |
| Height | 112mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 75°C-12% |
| Perf/Watt | 42.6 | 216.3+408% |
Value Analysis
The Tesla M40 24GB launched at $2000 MSRP and currently averages $120, while the RTX A1000 launched at $749 and now averages $500. The Tesla M40 24GB costs 76% less ($380 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 88.7 (Tesla M40 24GB) vs 21.6 (RTX A1000) — the Tesla M40 24GB offers 310.6% better value. The RTX A1000 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2015).
| Feature | Tesla M40 24GB | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2000 | $749-63% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $120-76% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 88.7+311% | 21.6 |
| Codename | GM200 | GA107 |
| Release | November 10 2015 | April 16 2024 |
| Ranking | #253 | #251 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Tesla M40 24GB and RTX A1000
