NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB vs NVIDIA L4 Comparison

The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB and NVIDIA L4 are both server accelerators, but they occupy opposite ends of the performance and efficiency spectrum. The data shows a clear split: the A100 is a high-throughput compute heavyweight, while the L4 is a compact, power-sipping workhorse for specific workloads. The A100 delivers a 47.1% higher OpenCL score than the L4, placing it in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the L4 sits in the 95th percentile. The choice comes down to whether raw compute density or physical and power efficiency is the priority.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB is the choice for compute-intensive environments where maximum throughput is non-negotiable. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 207,124 places it 5.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000D and 6.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB, cementing its status as a top-tier accelerator. The A100 also holds a decisive edge over the L4, winning the only head-to-head benchmark by a significant 47.1% margin. This makes it the superior option for large-scale AI training and scientific computing, where its 80 GB of HBM2e memory and 1.94 TB/s bandwidth provide a massive advantage.

The NVIDIA L4, conversely, is the pick for edge deployments, inference serving, and environments with strict power and space constraints. While its OpenCL score of 140,838 is 47.1% lower than the A100, it achieves this with a TDP of just 72 W compared to the A100’s 300 W. The L4’s single-slot, 169 mm length design and lack of power connectors make it far easier to integrate into dense servers. Its Vulkan score of 121,306 suggests it can handle graphics-adjacent tasks, a capability the A100 lacks entirely. The L4’s 95th percentile ranking, while lower than the A100’s 99th, still indicates strong performance relative to the broader GPU market.

Where Each One Wins

The A100 dominates in raw compute and memory bandwidth. It delivers 19.49 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 77.97 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 4:1 ratio, outpacing the L4’s 30.29 TFLOPS in FP32 and 30.29 TFLOPS in FP16 (1:1). The A100’s 1.94 TB/s memory bandwidth is over six times the L4’s 300.1 GB/s, making it the clear winner for memory-bound workloads like large language model training or high-resolution simulation. Its 5,120-bit bus width and 80 GB capacity dwarf the L4’s 192-bit bus and 24 GB frame buffer.

The L4 wins on efficiency and physical footprint. Its 5 nm process node (vs. 7 nm on the A100) allows for a higher transistor density of 121.8M per mm², compared to the A100’s 65.6M per mm². The L4’s 72 W TDP is a fraction of the A100’s 300 W, and its suggested PSU of 250 W is far lower than the A100’s 700 W requirement. The L4 also has dedicated RT cores (60) and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for real-time ray tracing and virtualization workloads. The A100 has no display outputs and no listed API support, reinforcing its role as a pure compute accelerator.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The A100 uses the Ampere architecture (chip GA100) on a 7 nm TSMC process, with 54,200 million transistors on a 826 mm² die. The L4 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture (chip AD104) on a 5 nm TSMC process, with 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The L4’s smaller die and newer process yield a transistor density of 121.8M per mm², nearly double the A100’s 65.6M per mm².

Core configurations differ substantially. The A100 has 6,912 shading units, 432 TMUs, 160 ROPs, and 432 tensor cores. The L4 has more shading units at 7,424 but fewer TMUs (240) and ROPs (80), along with 240 tensor cores and 60 RT cores. The A100’s higher TMU and ROP counts contribute to its superior texture rate (609.1 GTexel/s vs. 489.6 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (225.6 GPixel/s vs. 163.2 GPixel/s). The A100’s FP16 performance of 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1) is more than double the L4’s 30.29 TFLOPS (1:1), indicating a design optimized for mixed-precision AI workloads.

Memory architecture is another key divider. The A100 uses HBM2e with a 5,120-bit bus, delivering 1.94 TB/s bandwidth. The L4 uses GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus, providing 300.1 GB/s. The A100’s memory clock is 1,512 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the L4’s is 1,563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective). The L4 compensates with a higher boost clock of 2,040 MHz vs. the A100’s 1,410 MHz, but this does not overcome the memory bandwidth gap.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB scores 207,124 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 47.1% higher than the NVIDIA L4’s 140,838.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The A100 has a TDP of 300 W and a suggested PSU of 700 W, while the L4 has a TDP of 72 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Does the L4 support any graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the L4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A100 has no listed API support.

Q: How do their memory capacities and types compare?

A: The A100 has 80 GB of HBM2e memory with a 5,120-bit bus and 1.94 TB/s bandwidth. The L4 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 192-bit bus and 300.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller physical footprint?

A: The L4 is 169 mm long and 56 mm high, occupying a single slot. The A100 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, occupying a dual-slot configuration.

Q: What is the production status of each?

A: The A100 is end-of-life, while the L4 is active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the A100 decisively outperforms the L4. The A100 scores 207,124, while the L4 scores 140,838, resulting in a 47.1% delta in favor of the A100. This is the largest gap in the dataset and highlights the A100’s compute dominance.

Breaking down the score, the A100’s advantage can be attributed to its memory subsystem and FP16 throughput. The A100’s 1.94 TB/s bandwidth and 77.97 TFLOPS FP16 performance are far beyond the L4’s 300.1 GB/s and 30.29 TFLOPS. The L4’s higher boost clock (2,040 MHz vs. 1,410 MHz) and greater shading unit count (7,424 vs. 6,912) do not compensate for these deficits.

Contextualizing against rivals, the A100’s score places it 5.7% above the NVIDIA RTX 6000D and 6.5% above the Tesla V100S, but 5.8% below the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D and 8% below the NVIDIA PG506-232. The L4, meanwhile, is nearly tied with the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti (0.7% lower) and trails the RTX 4000 Ada Generation by 3.1%. This shows the A100 competes at the high end of the server GPU market, while the L4 aims for mid-range efficiency.

The L4’s Vulkan score of 121,306 is not directly comparable to the A100, as the A100 has no Vulkan result. However, the L4’s support for modern APIs and RT cores suggests a broader workload range, even if its raw compute is lower. The data ultimately favors the A100 for pure performance and the L4 for efficiency, with the 47.1% OpenCL gap serving as the defining metric between them.