AMD Radeon RX 590 GME vs NVIDIA Tesla P4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes only two shared benchmark tests between the NVIDIA Tesla P4 and the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME, and the results are decisive in one direction. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 36,294 against the Tesla P4's 34,947, a 3.7% advantage for the RX 590 GME. That is a modest lead, suggesting the two cards are broadly comparable in compute workloads that stress raw parallel throughput.

The Vulkan result tells a very different story. The RX 590 GME scores 60,508, while the Tesla P4 manages only 40,309. That is a 33.4% gap in favor of AMD. This is not a narrow margin; it is a substantial performance separation in a modern graphics API. The data implies the RX 590 GME has a significant architectural advantage in Vulkan workloads, likely related to how each card schedules and executes draw calls and compute shaders. The Tesla P4's Pascal architecture, while capable in OpenCL, appears to lose ground when the workload shifts to Vulkan's lower-level control model.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the average scores reinforce this picture. The Tesla P4's average benchmark score is 37,628, placing it in the 81st percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RX 590 GME averages 32,601, which lands in the 77th percentile. This is curious: despite winning both head-to-head tests, the AMD card has a lower average score. That discrepancy likely stems from the different benchmark suites each card was tested with. The RX 590 GME's average includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1,001, which is a very different workload from Geekbench's synthetic tests. The Tesla P4, by contrast, was only tested in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, both of which are compute-heavy.

The nearest rivals in the database offer context for these averages. The Tesla P4 sits within 0.1% of the GeForce RTX 4070's average score of 37,648, and within 0.3% of the Radeon RX Vega 56's 37,507. That places the Tesla P4 in surprisingly fast company for a card from 2016. The RX 590 GME, meanwhile, is within 0.2% of the FirePro S9300 X2's 32,540 and within 0.4% of the RX 7900 GRE's 32,456. These rival deltas are all small, indicating the RX 590 GME's average score is representative of a cluster of mid-range cards.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME wins decisively. Its Geekbench Vulkan score is 60,508 against the Tesla P4's 40,309, a 33.4% lead.

Q: How close are the two cards in OpenCL?

A: They are close. The RX 590 GME scores 36,294 in Geekbench OpenCL, only 3.7% ahead of the Tesla P4's 34,947.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Tesla P4 has an average benchmark score of 37,628, while the RX 590 GME averages 32,601. This places them in the 81st and 77th percentiles of all GPUs, respectively.

Q: Does the Tesla P4 have any benchmark wins over the RX 590 GME?

A: No. In the two shared tests, the RX 590 GME wins both. The Tesla P4 has zero recorded head-to-head wins.

Q: How does the Tesla P4 compare to its nearest rival, the RTX 4070?

A: The Tesla P4's average score of 37,628 is within 0.1% of the RTX 4070's 37,648. That is a negligible difference in the database's records.

Q: What about the RX 590 GME's position among its rivals?

A: The RX 590 GME's average of 32,601 is within 0.2% of the FirePro S9300 X2 and within 0.4% of the RX 7900 GRE, indicating it sits in a tight performance cluster.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Tesla P4 uses NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, built on a GP104 chip at TSMC's 16 nm process. The RX 590 GME uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a Polaris 20 chip at GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. Both are older designs, but they approach parallelism differently.

The Tesla P4 packs 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RX 590 GME has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, but only 32 ROPs. That ROP disparity is significant: the Tesla P4 has exactly twice the ROP count. This explains the pixel rate difference. The Tesla P4 achieves 71.30 GPixel/s, while the RX 590 GME manages only 45.44 GPixel/s. In rasterization-heavy workloads, the Tesla P4 should have a clear edge in fill-rate-limited scenarios.

Texture throughput tells the opposite story. The RX 590 GME posts 204.5 GTexel/s, while the Tesla P4 reaches 178.2 GTexel/s. The AMD card has fewer TMUs, but higher clock speeds compensate. The RX 590 GME's boost clock of 1420 MHz versus the Tesla P4's 1114 MHz is a key factor here. The AMD card's clock advantage also shows in FP32 compute: 6.543 TFLOPS versus 5.704 TFLOPS.

The FP16 story is stark. The RX 590 GME delivers 6.543 TFLOPS in FP16, a 1:1 ratio with its FP32 output. The Tesla P4, by contrast, delivers only 89.12 GFLOPS in FP16, a 1:64 ratio. That means the AMD card offers 73 times the FP16 throughput of the NVIDIA card. For workloads that leverage half-precision math, the RX 590 GME is overwhelmingly superior. The Tesla P4's Pascal architecture clearly prioritized FP32 and never implemented meaningful FP16 support.

Memory subsystems differ as well. Both cards use 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the RX 590 GME runs its memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), yielding 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla P4 runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding 192.3 GB/s. That is a 33% bandwidth advantage for AMD, which aligns with the Vulkan performance gap.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The Tesla P4 has a base clock of 886 MHz and a boost clock of 1114 MHz. The RX 590 GME runs at 1257 MHz base and 1420 MHz boost, a 42% higher base clock and 27% higher boost clock.

Power draw is a major separator. The Tesla P4 is rated at 75 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and fits in a single slot. The RX 590 GME is rated at 175 W TDP, needs a single 8-pin power connector, and occupies a dual-slot design. The suggested PSU ratings follow: 250 W for the Tesla P4, 450 W for the RX 590 GME.

Physical dimensions reflect the cooling requirements. The Tesla P4 is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long. The RX 590 GME is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long. The Tesla P4 has no display outputs, an indication of its server/data-center role. The RX 590 GME offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Transistor counts and die sizes also differ. The Tesla P4 uses 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, giving a density of 22.9 million transistors per mm². The RX 590 GME uses 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving a density of 24.6 million per mm². Despite the Tesla P4's larger die, the AMD chip packs transistors more densely.

API support shows minor differences. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Tesla P4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 590 GME supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA card has a slightly higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Release timing is also notable. The Tesla P4 launched in September 2016, while the RX 590 GME launched in March 2020, a gap of over three years. Both are now end-of-life products. The Tesla P4's predecessor was Tesla Maxwell and its successor was Tesla Volta. The RX 590 GME's predecessor was Arctic Islands and its successor was Vega.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced conclusion. The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME wins both head-to-head benchmarks, including a dominant 33.4% lead in Vulkan. Its FP32 and FP16 compute are higher, its memory bandwidth is 33% greater, and its clock speeds are substantially higher. For any workload that leverages these strengths, the RX 590 GME is the better performer.

However, the Tesla P4 is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 37,628 is higher than the RX 590 GME's 32,601, and it sits in the 81st percentile versus the AMD card's 77th. Its pixel rate of 71.30 GPixel/s is 57% higher than the RX 590 GME's 45.44 GPixel/s, thanks to double the ROP count. Its power draw of 75 W is less than half of the AMD card's 175 W, and it requires no external power connectors. For constrained environments, that efficiency is a decisive factor.

The verdict depends on the use case. If the priority is raw compute in Vulkan or FP16 workloads, the RX 590 GME is the clear choice. If the priority is rasterization throughput, power efficiency, or a compact single-slot form factor, the Tesla P4 has advantages. Neither card is a universal winner. The database shows two cards optimized for different priorities, and the right pick depends entirely on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 590 GME wins in:

• Vulkan performance, with a 33.4% lead in Geekbench Vulkan (60,508 vs. 40,309)
• OpenCL performance, with a 3.7% lead (36,294 vs. 34,947)
• FP32 compute, at 6.543 TFLOPS vs. 5.704 TFLOPS
• FP16 compute, at 6.543 TFLOPS vs. 89.12 GFLOPS, a 73x advantage
• Memory bandwidth, at 256.0 GB/s vs. 192.3 GB/s
• Texture fill rate, at 204.5 GTexel/s vs. 178.2 GTexel/s
• Clock speeds, with a 1420 MHz boost vs. 1114 MHz

NVIDIA Tesla P4 wins in:

• Average benchmark score, at 37,628 vs. 32,601
• Percentile ranking, at 81st vs. 77th
• Pixel fill rate, at 71.30 GPixel/s vs. 45.44 GPixel/s
• ROP count, at 64 vs. 32
• Power efficiency, at 75 W TDP vs. 175 W TDP
• Physical footprint, at 168 mm single-slot vs. 241 mm dual-slot
• DirectX feature level, at 12_1 vs. 12_0
• Vulkan API version, at 1.4 vs. 1.3

The data suggests the RX 590 GME is the stronger compute performer, especially in modern APIs and half-precision workloads. The Tesla P4 holds advantages in rasterization, efficiency, and overall benchmark standing. For a system with power and space constraints, the Tesla P4 is compelling. For maximum performance in supported workloads, the RX 590 GME delivers more.