NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB vs NVIDIA L4 Comparison

The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB and the NVIDIA L4 represent two distinct design philosophies within NVIDIA’s server lineup, separated by three years of architectural evolution. The A100, built on the Ampere architecture, is an end-of-life flagship that still commands a 98th percentile ranking among all GPUs. The L4, an active Ada Lovelace part, sits at the 95th percentile. While the A100 wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons by a significant margin, the L4 counters with newer technology, dramatically lower power demands, and a much smaller physical footprint. This analysis examines where each card excels, what the architectural differences mean for real workloads, and which types of deployments each best serves.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of raw compute superiority for the A100. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A100 scores 201,096 against the L4’s 140,838, a 42.8% advantage. The Vulkan test shows the same exact delta: 201,096 vs 140,838 for OpenCL, and 173,198 vs 121,306 for Vulkan, again a 42.8% lead for the A100. These are not marginal wins; they represent a substantial performance gulf in general-purpose compute workloads.

However, the L4 wins in areas that the raw benchmark scores do not capture. The L4’s TDP is 72 W compared to the A100’s 400 W, meaning the L4 delivers its performance at roughly 18% of the power envelope. The suggested PSU requirement tells the same story: 250 W for the L4 versus 800 W for the A100. The L4 is also a single-slot card measuring 169 mm in length, while the A100 is an SXM module with no specified dimensions — a form factor that requires a specialized chassis rather than a standard PCIe slot.

In terms of efficiency per watt, the L4 achieves 30.29 TFLOPS FP32 with 72 W, while the A100 achieves 19.49 TFLOPS FP32 with 400 W. This means the L4 produces roughly 0.42 TFLOPS per watt versus the A100’s 0.05 TFLOPS per watt — a massive efficiency advantage for the newer card. For deployments where power density, cooling capacity, or physical space are constraints, the L4 is the clear winner despite its lower absolute performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations with fundamentally different design goals. The A100 uses the GA100 chip on TSMC’s 7 nm process, packing 54,200 million transistors onto an 826 mm² die. The L4 uses the AD104 chip on TSMC’s 5 nm process, with 35,800 million transistors on a much smaller 294 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story of process advancement: the A100 achieves 65.6 million transistors per mm², while the L4 achieves 121.8 million per mm² — nearly double the density.

Clock speeds reveal the generational shift in approach. The A100 runs at a modest 1095 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost, while the L4 runs at 795 MHz base but boosts to 2040 MHz. This higher boost clock, combined with the newer architecture, allows the L4 to achieve higher FP32 throughput (30.29 TFLOPS) than the A100 (19.49 TFLOPS) despite having fewer total resources in some categories.

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The A100 uses 40 GB of HBM2e with a 5120-bit bus and 1.56 TB/s bandwidth. The L4 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus and 300.1 GB/s bandwidth. The A100’s memory bandwidth is over five times higher, which explains its dominance in memory-intensive compute benchmarks. The L4’s FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 30.29 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the A100’s FP16 is 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1 ratio) — the A100’s tensor core advantage is baked into this ratio.

Feature support differs as well. The L4 includes 60 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A100 has no ray tracing cores and lists no API support in the data. This makes the L4 more versatile for workloads that touch graphics or ray tracing, while the A100 is purely a compute accelerator.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB has an average benchmark score of 187,147, while the NVIDIA L4 scores 131,072. The A100 sits at the 98th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the L4’s 95th percentile.

Q: Is the A100 faster in both available benchmarks?

A: Yes. The A100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 201,096 against the L4’s 140,838 (42.8% higher) and wins Geekbench Vulkan with 173,198 against 121,306 (also 42.8% higher). The head-to-head record is 2 wins for the A100 and 0 for the L4.

Q: How does the power consumption compare between the two cards?

A: The A100 has a TDP of 400 W and recommends an 800 W power supply, while the L4 has a TDP of 72 W and recommends a 250 W power supply. The L4 is dramatically more power-efficient.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: The A100 features 40 GB of HBM2e with a 5120-bit bus and 1.56 TB/s bandwidth. The L4 features 24 GB of GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus and 300.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is currently in production?

A: The NVIDIA L4 is listed as "Active" production status and was released on 2023-03-20. The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB is listed as "End-of-life" and was released on 2020-05-13.

Q: What form factors do these cards use?

A: The A100 is an SXM Module with no power connectors and no display outputs. The L4 is a single-slot PCIe card (169mm long, 56mm high) with no power connectors and no display outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node advances from 7 nm (A100) to 5 nm (L4). Transistor counts drop from 54,200 million to 35,800 million, while die size shrinks from 826 mm² to 294 mm². Transistor density nearly doubles from 65.6M/mm² to 121.8M/mm².

Clock speeds shift from a 1095 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost (A100) to a 795 MHz base and 2040 MHz boost (L4). Memory changes completely: 40 GB HBM2e with 5120-bit bus and 1.56 TB/s bandwidth versus 24 GB GDDR6 with 192-bit bus and 300.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources differ in configuration. The A100 has 6912 shading units, 432 TMUs, 160 ROPs, and 432 tensor cores. The L4 has 7424 shading units, 240 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 60 ray tracing cores, and 240 tensor cores. The A100 achieves higher pixel rate (225.6 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (609.1 GTexel/s vs 489.6 GTexel/s).

FP32 compute favors the L4 at 30.29 TFLOPS versus 19.49 TFLOPS, but FP16 favors the A100 at 77.97 TFLOPS versus 30.29 TFLOPS. The TDP difference is enormous: 400 W versus 72 W. The suggested PSU drops from 800 W to 250 W. The A100 is an SXM module, while the L4 is single-slot with actual dimensions. The L4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the A100 lists no API support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent 42.8% advantage for the A100 in both available tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A100 scores 201,096 against the L4’s 140,838. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A100 scores 173,198 against the L4’s 121,306. The identical delta percentage across both APIs suggests the performance gap is architectural rather than workload-specific — the A100’s massive memory bandwidth and larger compute footprint simply overpower the L4 in these synthetic tests.

Context from nearest rivals helps interpret these numbers. The A100’s closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation at 184,664 (1.3% behind), followed by the A100 SXM4 80 GB at 183,725 (1.9% behind) and the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell at 182,109 (2.8% behind). Interestingly, the Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB scores higher at 194,415, putting the A100 3.7% behind that older card. This suggests the A100, despite being end-of-life, remains competitive with much newer hardware.

The L4’s nearest rivals paint a different picture. The GeForce RTX 3090 Ti scores 131,938, just 0.7% ahead of the L4. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 135,218 (3.1% ahead), the A10M scores 135,230 (3.1% ahead), and the Radeon PRO W6800 scores 135,396 (3.2% ahead). The L4 sits at the bottom of this group, but the margins are small — within 3.2% of four different rivals. The L4’s 95th percentile ranking shows it is still a strong performer overall, just not at the A100’s level.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split between raw performance and operational efficiency. The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB wins decisively on compute benchmarks, with a 42.8% lead over the L4 in both OpenCL and Vulkan tests. Its 1.56 TB/s memory bandwidth, 40 GB of HBM2e, and 77.97 TFLOPS FP16 capability make it the stronger choice for memory-bandwidth-bound and tensor-heavy workloads. The A100’s 98th percentile ranking and close competition with much newer cards like the RTX 5000 Ada Generation (1.3% difference) show that its architectural design remains potent even as it reaches end-of-life status.

The NVIDIA L4, however, wins on every efficiency metric. Its 72 W TDP versus 400 W, its 5 nm process versus 7 nm, and its 121.8M/mm² transistor density versus 65.6M/mm² all point to a modern, power-savvy design. The L4 also beats the A100 in FP32 throughput (30.29 vs 19.49 TFLOPS), showing that for single-precision workloads, the newer architecture is actually faster per unit of silicon. The L4’s 24 GB GDDR6 memory, while smaller and slower than the A100’s HBM2e, is still substantial for many inference and edge tasks.

For users needing maximum compute density and memory bandwidth, the A100 is the clear choice from this data. For users prioritizing power efficiency, physical size, and modern API support, the L4 is the better fit. The 42.8% benchmark gap is significant, but so is the 328 W TDP difference. The choice comes down to whether raw performance or operational economics matter more for the specific deployment. The A100 is a proven workhorse nearing retirement; the L4 is a modern, efficient successor for a different class of workloads.