NVIDIA A10M vs NVIDIA L4 Comparison

The NVIDIA A10M and NVIDIA L4 are both single-slot server accelerators built for compute and AI workloads, but they represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA’s architecture. The A10M is an Ampere-generation part built on Samsung’s 8 nm process, while the L4 is an Ada Lovelace-generation part built on TSMC’s 5 nm process. Benchmark data shows the L4 holds a clear performance lead in the available test, though the A10M remains a competitive option in specific scenarios. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and specification gaps between the two cards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show the NVIDIA L4 taking a decisive win. The L4 scored 140838, while the A10M scored 135230, giving the L4 a 4% advantage in this test. That delta of -4% from the perspective of the A10M means the older card trails by roughly four percentage points in raw compute performance as measured by OpenCL. While a 4% gap is not enormous, it is consistent across the board when looking at the broader benchmark landscape, as the L4 also posts a second score in Geekbench Vulkan of 121306, a test the A10M has no recorded result for.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card puts this head-to-head result into context. The A10M’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation, which scores 135218, a delta of 0%. This means the A10M and the RTX 4000 Ada are essentially tied in average benchmark score. The A10M also sits near the AMD Radeon PRO W6800, which scores 135396 (a -0.1% delta), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135774 (a -0.4% delta). The A10M’s average benchmark score is 135230, placing it at the 96th percentile of all GPUs.

The L4, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 131072, which is lower than its OpenCL score because the Vulkan result drags the average down. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, which scores 131938, a delta of -0.7% relative to the L4. The L4 also trails the RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135218, -3.1%), the A10M (135230, -3.1%), and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135396, -3.2%) in average score. This is a curious situation: the L4 wins the single head-to-head OpenCL test against the A10M, but its multi-test average is lower because the Vulkan score is significantly weaker.

The key takeaway is that in the OpenCL workload, the L4 is the faster card by 4%, but the A10M is not far behind. The A10M’s higher average benchmark score (135230 vs 131072) reflects that it only has one benchmark result, whereas the L4’s average is dragged down by a weaker Vulkan showing. For workloads that rely on OpenCL, the L4 is the winner, but the margin is modest.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA L4 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 140838 against the A10M’s 135230. This makes the L4 the better choice for compute workloads that are optimized for OpenCL, such as certain scientific simulations, rendering tasks, or machine learning inference that leverages OpenCL kernels. The L4 also offers a second benchmark result in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 121306, which indicates it has broader API support in the benchmark suite. While there is no A10M Vulkan score to compare, the presence of this result suggests the L4 is capable in Vulkan-based applications, giving it an edge in cross-platform compute scenarios.

The NVIDIA A10M, despite losing the OpenCL test, still holds its own in terms of overall positioning. Its average benchmark score of 135230 is higher than the L4’s average of 131072, which means that in a mixed workload environment where both OpenCL and Vulkan are used, the A10M could come out ahead due to the L4’s weaker Vulkan performance. The A10M also sits at the 96th percentile of all GPUs, matching the L4’s 95th percentile, indicating that both cards are top-tier performers in the broader GPU landscape. For users who prioritize OpenCL performance specifically, the L4 is the clear winner. For users who need consistent performance across a variety of compute APIs, the A10M’s single strong OpenCL result might be more reliable, though the lack of Vulkan data makes this a speculative advantage.

The L4 also wins on efficiency, which is not directly benchmarked but is reflected in its specifications. The L4 has a TDP of 72 W compared to the A10M’s 150 W, meaning the L4 delivers its performance at less than half the power draw. This makes the L4 the better choice for power-constrained environments or dense server deployments where thermal and power budgets are tight. The A10M, with its higher TDP, is better suited for systems with more generous power headroom, where the 4% OpenCL deficit is acceptable in exchange for a lower average benchmark score.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The A10M uses the Ampere architecture with the GA102 chip, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The L4 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD104 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process. This process difference is significant: the L4’s 5 nm node allows for much higher transistor density, at 121.8 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to the A10M’s 45.1 million per square millimeter. Despite the L4 having a smaller die size of 294 mm² versus the A10M’s 628 mm², the L4 packs more transistors overall, with 35,800 million compared to the A10M’s 28,300 million.

The architectural generational leap is also evident in the core counts. The L4 has 7424 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 60 ray tracing cores, while the A10M has 7168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 56 ray tracing cores. The L4 also has more tensor cores, with 240 versus the A10M’s 224. These higher counts, combined with the newer architecture, give the L4 a theoretical compute advantage. The L4’s FP32 performance is 30.29 TFLOPS, compared to the A10M’s 23.44 TFLOPS, a substantial 29% gap in raw single-precision compute. Similarly, FP16 performance is 30.29 TFLOPS on the L4 versus 23.44 TFLOPS on the A10M, both at a 1:1 ratio.

The L4 also has higher clock speeds, with a boost clock of 2040 MHz versus the A10M’s 1635 MHz, and a base clock of 795 MHz versus 975 MHz. The L4’s higher boost clock compensates for its lower base clock, allowing it to reach higher peak performance under load. The L4’s pixel rate is 163.2 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 489.6 GTexel/s, both higher than the A10M’s 130.8 GPixel/s and 366.2 GTexel/s. These architectural differences explain why the L4 wins the OpenCL benchmark despite having a lower average score across multiple tests.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond the architecture. The most striking difference is in memory configuration. The A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 500.2 GB/s. The L4 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 300.1 GB/s. The A10M has significantly higher memory bandwidth, which could benefit memory-intensive workloads, but the L4 has more total memory capacity, which is advantageous for large models or datasets that need to fit entirely in VRAM.

Power consumption is another major divider. The A10M has a TDP of 150 W and requires an 8-pin EPS power connector, while the L4 has a TDP of 72 W and requires no power connector at all, drawing power solely from the PCIe slot. The suggested PSU is 450 W for the A10M and 250 W for the L4, reflecting the L4’s much lower power draw. The physical dimensions also differ: the A10M is 267 mm long and 112 mm high, while the L4 is 169 mm long and 56 mm high, making the L4 a much more compact card.

Both cards are single-slot, have no display outputs, and use a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface. They also share the same API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status differs, with the A10M marked as end-of-life and the L4 marked as active. The L4 has a release date of March 20, 2023, while the A10M has no listed release date. The A10M’s predecessor is Tesla Turing, and its successor is Server Ada, while the L4’s predecessor is Server Ampere, and its successor is Server Hopper. Neither card has a launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA L4 wins with a score of 140838, compared to the A10M’s 135230, a 4% advantage.

Q: Does the A10M have a higher average benchmark score than the L4?

A: Yes. The A10M has an average benchmark score of 135230, while the L4 has an average of 131072, because the L4’s Vulkan score of 121306 lowers its average.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two cards?

A: The A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus with 500.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the L4 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 300.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The A10M has a TDP of 150 W and requires an 8-pin EPS connector, whereas the L4 has a TDP of 72 W and requires no power connector.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 performance?

A: The L4 has a higher FP32 performance at 30.29 TFLOPS, compared to the A10M’s 23.44 TFLOPS.

Q: Are both cards single-slot and PCIe 4.0 x16?

A: Yes, both the A10M and the L4 are single-slot cards with a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface and no display outputs.