NVIDIA A10G vs NVIDIA L4 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA A10G beats the NVIDIA L4 in both recorded benchmark tests, and by a substantial margin in one of them. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A10G scores 158,063 against the L4's 140,838, a 12.2% advantage. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the A10G posts 145,863 versus the L4's 121,306 — a 20.2% lead. The A10G wins both head-to-head matchups, giving it a clean 2–0 record.

Context from the nearest-rival data reinforces the A10G's position. Its average benchmark score of 151,963 places it 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 32 GB (150,305) and 9.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI100 (139,035). It trails only the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X (160,671, −5.4%) and the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504, −6.5%) among its listed competitors. This places the A10G in the 97th percentile of all GPUs — a high-end performer that sits just below flagship accelerators.

The L4's average score of 131,072 tells a different story. It lands within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti (131,938), 3.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218), and 3.1% behind the NVIDIA A10M (135,230). Its 95th percentile ranking is respectable, but the delta between the two cards is consistent across both tests: the A10G is faster, and the Vulkan result shows the A10G's advantage can stretch to over a fifth.

These numbers indicate more than just raw speed. The 20.2% Vulkan gap suggests the A10G's architecture handles compute-heavy workloads with greater efficiency per clock, while the 12.2% OpenCL lead shows a more moderate but still decisive advantage in that API. For any workload where benchmark scores correlate with real-world performance, the A10G is the stronger card outright.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A10G leads with an average score of 151,963, compared to the NVIDIA L4's 131,072 — a difference of roughly 15.9% in the A10G's favor.

Q: How does the A10G perform against its nearest rivals?

A: The A10G is 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 32 GB and 9.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI100, but trails the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X by 5.4% and the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by 6.5%.

Q: What is the L4's competitive position relative to other GPUs?

A: The L4 sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, and is 3.1% behind both the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation and the NVIDIA A10M. It also trails the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 by 3.2%.

Q: In which benchmark does the A10G have its largest margin over the L4?

A: The largest margin is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the A10G scores 145,863 against the L4's 121,306 — a 20.2% advantage. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A10G's lead is 12.2%.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. Despite identical API capabilities, the A10G outperforms the L4 in both recorded API-specific tests.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each GPU?

A: The A10G ranks in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the L4 ranks in the 95th percentile. This places both in the upper tier, but the A10G sits clearly higher overall.

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A10G wins everywhere the benchmark data measures. It takes Geekbench OpenCL by 12.2% and Geekbench Vulkan by 20.2%. There is no recorded test where the L4 comes out ahead. For compute-heavy tasks such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan performance, the A10G is the definitive choice based on this data.

However, the L4 has its own strengths that the benchmark scores do not capture. Its 72 W TDP is less than half the A10G's 150 W, and it requires no power connectors at all — the A10G needs an 8-pin EPS. The L4's suggested PSU is 250 W versus 450 W for the A10G. It is also dramatically smaller: 169 mm long and 56 mm high, compared to the A10G's 267 mm by 112 mm. For deployments where physical space, power delivery, or thermal headroom are constraints, the L4 offers a far lighter footprint.

The L4 also ships with a newer architecture (Ada Lovelace versus Ampere) and a more advanced process node (5 nm TSMC versus 8 nm Samsung). It packs more transistors — 35,800 million versus 28,300 million — into a smaller die (294 mm² versus 628 mm²), yielding a transistor density of 121.8M per mm² versus 45.1M per mm². While these architectural advantages do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded tests, they suggest the L4 may offer better efficiency per watt in real-world deployment.

Use-case split: the A10G is for raw performance workloads where power and space are secondary; the L4 is for dense, power-constrained environments where its lower draw and compact size matter more than peak compute.

# Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification beyond memory size and type. Both have 24 GB of GDDR6, but the A10G uses a 384-bit bus delivering 600.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the L4 uses a 192-bit bus delivering 300.1 GB/s — exactly half the bandwidth. The A10G's memory clock is listed at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), identical to the L4's.

Core counts skew heavily toward the A10G. It has 9216 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 288 tensor cores. The L4 has 7424 shading units, 240 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 60 RT cores, and 240 tensor cores. Despite this, the A10G's peak FP32 performance is 31.52 TFLOPS versus the L4's 30.29 TFLOPS — only a 4.1% difference, far smaller than the core-count gap would suggest. Both list FP16 at 1:1 with FP32.

Clock speeds favor the L4 in boost: 2040 MHz versus 1710 MHz for the A10G, though the A10G has a higher base clock at 1320 MHz versus 795 MHz. The L4's higher boost partially compensates for its fewer cores, narrowing the performance gap. Pixel rate and texture rate are nearly identical: 163.2 GPixel/s and 489.6 GTexel/s for the L4, versus 164.2 GPixel/s and 492.5 GTexel/s for the A10G.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. The A10G draws 150 W and needs an 8-pin EPS connector; the L4 draws 72 W and needs no connector. The A10G's suggested PSU is 450 W versus 250 W for the L4. Both are single-slot, but the A10G is 267 mm by 112 mm, while the L4 is 169 mm by 56 mm. Neither has display outputs. The A10G is end-of-life, while the L4 is still active. The A10G's release date is April 2021; the L4's is March 2023. The A10G's predecessor is Tesla Turing and successor is Server Ada; the L4's predecessor is Server Ampere and successor is Server Hopper.

# Architecture Differences

The A10G is built on the GA102 chip using the Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. The L4 uses the AD104 chip with the Ada Lovelace architecture, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. This generation gap is significant: the L4's newer node allows it to pack 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, while the A10G fits 28,300 million into a 628 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark — 121.8M per mm² for the L4 versus 45.1M per mm² for the A10G — meaning the L4 achieves far greater integration density despite having fewer total transistors.

The core configuration reflects these architectural differences. The A10G's Ampere design allocates more shading units (9216), TMUs (288), ROPs (96), RT cores (72), and tensor cores (288). The L4's Ada design uses fewer of each: 7424 shading units, 240 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 60 RT cores, and 240 tensor cores. Yet the L4's higher boost clock (2040 MHz versus 1710 MHz) and newer architecture bring its FP32 performance to 30.29 TFLOPS, close to the A10G's 31.52 TFLOPS.

Both support identical API levels: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The L4's Ada architecture includes newer features per its generation, but the benchmark data does not isolate those features — what shows up is that the A10G wins both recorded tests. The L4's process-node advantage may contribute to its dramatically lower TDP (72 W versus 150 W) and smaller physical footprint, but it does not yield a compute advantage in the measured workloads. The A10G's wider memory bus (384-bit versus 192-bit) and double bandwidth (600.2 GB/s versus 300.1 GB/s) are likely decisive in the benchmark results, as they directly affect data throughput in OpenCL and Vulkan compute tasks.

# The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA A10G if your priority is raw benchmark performance. It wins both recorded tests decisively — 12.2% in OpenCL and 20.2% in Vulkan — and its average score of 151,963 places it in the 97th percentile, well above the L4's 95th-percentile 131,072. The A10G also offers double the memory bandwidth (600.2 GB/s versus 300.1 GB/s) and a wider 384-bit bus, which are critical for memory-bound workloads. It is the card for compute-heavy tasks where every percentage point of throughput matters.

Pick the NVIDIA L4 if power, space, and efficiency dominate your requirements. Its 72 W TDP requires no power connector and a 250 W PSU, versus the A10G's 150 W, 8-pin EPS, and 450 W PSU. Its dimensions — 169 mm by 56 mm — are roughly 60% shorter and half the height of the A10G's 267 mm by 112 mm. The L4's newer Ada Lovelace architecture on TSMC 5 nm delivers higher transistor density (121.8M per mm² versus 45.1M per mm²) and a higher boost clock (2040 MHz versus 1710 MHz), which may translate to better per-watt performance in real deployments.

The data does not support choosing the L4 for speed. In every measured test, the A10G wins. But the L4's active production status and newer design make it a forward-looking option for new deployments where the A10G's end-of-life status is a concern. The A10G is the benchmark champion; the L4 is the efficiency and density specialist. Choose accordingly.