AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 vs NVIDIA Tesla P4 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla P4 and AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 are two end-of-life graphics cards that, despite vastly different designs and target markets, land within striking distance of each other in aggregate benchmark scores. The Tesla P4 averages 37,628 points, while the RX Vega 56 sits just 121 points behind at 37,507, a negligible 0.3% difference. Both occupy the 81st percentile of all GPUs, meaning they sit in the same performance tier. However, the data shows they achieve this parity through completely different architectural philosophies, making the choice between them far more nuanced than raw score alone suggests.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a near-total dead heat in overall compute performance, but the practical use cases for each card diverge sharply based on their physical and power characteristics. The Tesla P4 is the clear winner for anyone constrained by space, power delivery, or system compatibility. Its 75 W TDP requires no auxiliary power connectors, draws a suggested 250 W from the system PSU, and fits in a single slot at just 168 mm in length. This makes it a drop-in solution for existing servers, workstations with limited clearance, or any system where a dual-slot, 280 mm card with two 8-pin connectors would simply not fit. The RX Vega 56, by contrast, demands a 550 W PSU and a dual-slot chassis, making it a card for a dedicated gaming or compute rig built around its substantial footprint.

In terms of raw compute throughput, the RX Vega 56 wins decisively. Its FP32 performance of 10.54 TFLOPS is nearly double the Tesla P4's 5.704 TFLOPS. The texture rate also favors the AMD card, with 329.5 GTexel/s versus 178.2 GTexel/s on the Tesla. For workloads that scale with shading units and texture filtering — such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference — the Vega 56 provides a significant theoretical advantage. The Tesla P4 counters with a much higher memory clock (6 Gbps effective versus 1600 Mbps effective) and a smaller transistor density advantage, but its slower FP32 throughput means it will lose in compute-heavy tasks.

The real differentiator is power efficiency. The Tesla P4 delivers its 5.704 TFLOPS at just 75 W, while the RX Vega 56 requires 210 W to reach its 10.54 TFLOPS. Per watt, the Tesla is far more efficient, making it the preferred choice for dense server deployments or always-on compute nodes where heat and electricity are primary concerns. Conversely, the RX Vega 56's higher absolute performance makes it the winner for a single-socket workstation where max throughput is the only metric that matters.

Architecture Differences

These cards represent two distinct design eras and philosophies. The Tesla P4 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm TSMC process. It uses the GP104 chip, a 314 mm² die containing 7,200 million transistors, resulting in a density of 22.9M transistors per mm². The RX Vega 56 uses AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture (Vega 10), built on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. Its die is significantly larger at 495 mm² and packs 12,500 million transistors, yielding a higher density of 25.3M transistors per mm².

Memory configurations highlight a major philosophical split. The Tesla P4 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a massive 2048-bit bus, achieving more than double the bandwidth at 409.6 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage is critical for memory-bound workloads. The Vega 56 also has more execution resources: 3,584 shading units and 224 texture mapping units versus 2,560 shading units and 160 TMUs on the Tesla. Both have 64 ROPs.

The FP16 capabilities are starkly different. The Tesla P4 offers 89.12 GFLOPS of FP16 performance, a 1:64 ratio relative to its FP32 — essentially negligible. The RX Vega 56 provides 21.09 TFLOPS of FP16, a 2:1 ratio, making it far more capable for half-precision compute tasks. API support is nearly identical; both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Tesla P4 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the RX Vega 56 is limited to Vulkan 1.3. The Tesla P4 has no display outputs, while the RX Vega 56 includes 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, making it a usable desktop card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark data is sparse, but the available results paint a clear picture of workload-specific strengths. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Tesla P4 scores 34,947 points. The RX Vega 56 does not have a comparable OpenCL result in the data, but its Geekbench Metal score is 73,512. These are different APIs and cannot be directly compared, but they indicate that each card is optimized for different compute stacks. The RX Vega 56 also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,501, a test the Tesla P4 lacks.

The aggregate average scores are nearly identical: the Tesla P4 at 37,628 and the RX Vega 56 at 37,507. This places them as direct rivals, with the Tesla P4 having a 0.3% advantage over the Vega 56 in the rival list, while the Vega 56 shows a -0.3% delta from the Tesla. For context, both are within 1.3% of the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (37,157) and within 1.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135). The performance envelope is tight, but the underlying hardware differences mean the Vega 56 will pull ahead in tests that leverage its memory bandwidth or FP16 throughput, while the Tesla P4 will remain competitive in tests that favor its higher memory clock and lower power draw.

The biggest wins are theoretical rather than measured. The Vega 56's FP32 throughput is 84.8% higher than the Tesla P4's, and its texture rate is 84.9% higher. Its memory bandwidth is 113% higher. These are massive margins that translate into real-world advantages in shader-heavy or bandwidth-hungry tasks. The Tesla P4's only significant numeric win is its power consumption, which is 64.3% lower, and its smaller physical footprint.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56. Its FP32 throughput is 10.54 TFLOPS versus 5.704 TFLOPS on the NVIDIA Tesla P4, and its texture rate is 329.5 GTexel/s versus 178.2 GTexel/s.

Q: Are these cards comparable in overall benchmark scores?

A: Yes, nearly identical. The Tesla P4 has an average benchmark score of 37,628, while the RX Vega 56 scores 37,507, a delta of just 0.3%. Both sit in the 81st percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Tesla P4, decisively. It has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the RX Vega 56 has a 210 W TDP and needs two 8-pin connectors. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the Tesla versus 550 W for the Vega.

Q: Can I use either card in a standard desktop PC?

A: The RX Vega 56 can, as it has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a) and a standard dual-slot design. The Tesla P4 has no display outputs, making it unsuitable as a primary desktop GPU.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The RX Vega 56, with 409.6 GB/s over a 2048-bit HBM2 bus. The Tesla P4 offers 192.3 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 bus.

Q: Is there a difference in FP16 compute performance?

A: Significant. The RX Vega 56 provides 21.09 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the Tesla P4 offers only 89.12 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio).

The Verdict

The choice between these two cards is strictly a function of your system's constraints and workload priorities. If you need maximum compute throughput — whether for FP32-heavy rendering, FP16 machine learning, or bandwidth-intensive tasks — the RX Vega 56 is the clear pick. Its 10.54 TFLOPS, 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, and 21.09 TFLOPS FP16 capability give it a massive theoretical edge over the Tesla P4. It also functions as a standard desktop GPU with display outputs, adding versatility. The trade-off is its 210 W TDP, dual-slot size, and 280 mm length, which requires a substantial PSU and chassis.

If your priority is deployment in a constrained environment, the Tesla P4 is the only rational choice. Its 75 W TDP, single-slot profile, 168 mm length, and lack of power connectors make it ideal for servers or compact workstations where the RX Vega 56 would simply not fit or draw too much power. The performance gap in compute tasks is large, but the Tesla P4's efficiency — 5.704 TFLOPS at a quarter of the power draw — makes it the winner for dense, power-limited installations. It is also the better choice if you are using Vulkan 1.4-specific features, as the RX Vega 56 is limited to Vulkan 1.3.

For a typical gamer or single-GPU workstation user, the RX Vega 56 is the pragmatic pick. It offers near-identical aggregate benchmark scores to the Tesla P4 but with actual display outputs, higher memory bandwidth, and double the FP32 throughput. The Tesla P4 is a compute accelerator first and foremost, and its lack of display outputs is a dealbreaker for desktop use. The data does not support the Tesla for any workload where the Vega 56's physical requirements can be met. Only when power, space, or thermal limits are absolute should the Tesla P4 take precedence.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla P4 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Die Size | 314 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 12,500 million |

| Transistor Density | 22.9M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 886 MHz | 1156 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 1471 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz / 6 Gbps effective | 800 MHz / 1600 Mbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 3584 |

| TMUs | 160 | 224 |

| Pixel Rate | 71.30 GPixel/s | 94.14 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 178.2 GTexel/s | 329.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.704 TFLOPS | 10.54 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 89.12 GFLOPS (1:64) | 21.09 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 210 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan API | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions (Length) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 280 mm (11 inches) |

| Release Date | 2016-09-12 | 2017-08-13 |

| Predecessor | Tesla Maxwell | Polaris |

| Successor | Tesla Volta | Navi |