NVIDIA GB10 vs NVIDIA Tesla T4 Comparison

NVIDIA GB10 and NVIDIA Tesla T4 occupy different ends of the server GPU spectrum, separated by seven years of architecture evolution. The GB10 is a Blackwell 2.0 part built for modern AI workloads, while the T4 is a Turing-era accelerator that has reached end-of-life status. The recorded benchmark data shows the GB10 leads in every measured test, but the two cards differ so fundamentally in design goals that a direct comparison reveals more about generational shifts than about raw performance parity.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GB10 records an average benchmark score of 117393, while the NVIDIA Tesla T4 averages 66733. The GB10 sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the T4 is at the 90th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GB10 scores 120137 against the T4's 61276, a 96.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GB10 scores 114648 against the T4's 72190, a 58.8% lead.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The GB10's closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, with an average score of 117088 and a delta of 0.3%. The T4's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon VII, with an average score of 66004 and a delta of 1.1%.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The GB10 uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The T4 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 320.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The GB10 has a 140 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The T4 has a 70 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The GB10 is listed as Active, released on 2025-10-14. The T4 is End-of-life, released on 2018-09-12.

Architecture Differences

The GB10 uses the GB20B chip on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 382 mm². The T4 uses the TU104 chip on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC, with a die size of 545 mm² and a transistor count of 13,600 million. The transistor density for the T4 is recorded as 25.0M per mm², while the GB10's transistor count is listed as unknown, though its smaller die on a finer node indicates a much denser design.

The GB10 is based on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, classified under Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. The T4 is Turing architecture, classified under Tesla Turing (Txx) generation. This architectural gap explains several specification differences: the GB10 delivers 29.71 TFLOPS of FP32 and the same 29.71 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, while the T4 delivers 8.141 TFLOPS of FP32 and 16.28 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio.

Core counts differ substantially. The GB10 has 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 384 tensor cores. The T4 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 320 tensor cores. The GB10's texture rate is 928.5 GTexel/s versus 254.4 GTexel/s on the T4, and its pixel rate is 116.1 GPixel/s versus 101.8 GPixel/s.

The GB10 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the T4 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The GB10 includes 1x HDMI display output, whereas the T4 has no display outputs. API support also diverges: the GB10 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the T4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The GB10 wins both recorded benchmark tests, taking 2 wins against 0 for the T4. Its strongest advantage appears in OpenCL, where it leads by 96.1%, a margin driven by its much higher FP32 throughput and larger memory capacity. In Vulkan, the GB10 leads by 58.8%, a smaller gap but still decisive.

The T4 does not win any measured test. However, its design priorities differ: it offers higher memory bandwidth relative to its capacity (320.0 GB/s for 16 GB versus 273.2 GB/s for 128 GB on the GB10). The T4 also draws less power at 70 W versus 140 W, and its single-slot form factor with no power connectors makes it suitable for dense deployments where the GB10's IGP slot width and 300 W suggested PSU require more headroom.

The GB10's strengths are computational: its FP32 output is roughly 3.65 times that of the T4, and its FP16 output at 1:1 means it does not trade off precision for throughput. The T4's FP16 advantage over its own FP32 (16.28 TFLOPS versus 8.141 TFLOPS) indicates a 2:1 ratio optimized for mixed-precision workloads, but the absolute numbers are far lower than the GB10's.

For workloads that rely on OpenCL compute, the GB10 is the clear choice based on the data. For Vulkan-based tasks, the GB10 still leads, but the T4's narrower deficit suggests it can remain viable in legacy environments. The T4's end-of-life status and older PCIe 3.0 interface limit its relevance for new systems, while the GB10's active status and PCIe 5.0 support point to current-generation integration.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded field. The GB10 has a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost clock of 2418 MHz, while the T4 has a base clock of 585 MHz and a boost clock of 1590 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective on the GB10, versus 1250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective on the T4.

Memory capacity is the largest single difference: 128 GB on the GB10 versus 16 GB on the T4. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the memory type differs (LPDDR5X versus GDDR6), and the T4 actually has higher bandwidth at 320.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.

The GB10 has more shading units (6144 versus 2560), more TMUs (384 versus 160), more RT cores (48 versus 40), and more tensor cores (384 versus 320). The T4 has more ROPs (64 versus 48). The GB10's pixel rate is 116.1 GPixel/s versus 101.8 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 928.5 GTexel/s versus 254.4 GTexel/s.

Physical dimensions differ: the GB10 is 150 mm by 51 mm by 150 mm, while the T4 is 168 mm long with no recorded height or width. The GB10 is listed as IGP slot width, the T4 as single-slot. The GB10 has no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the T4 also has no power connectors but a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Process node, die size, and transistor data all differ. The GB10 uses 5 nm with a 382 mm² die; the T4 uses 12 nm with a 545 mm² die and 13,600 million transistors. The T4's transistor density is recorded at 25.0M per mm², while the GB10's density is null.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests both favor the GB10. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GB10 scores 120137 against the T4's 61276, a delta of 96.1%. This near-doubling of performance aligns with the GB10's 3.65x FP32 advantage and its much larger shading unit count. The T4's OpenCL score places it near rivals like the AMD Radeon VII (66004, delta 1.1%) and the NVIDIA Tesla P40 (65095, delta 2.5%), while the GB10's score sits close to the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118976, delta -1.3%) and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117088, delta 0.3%).

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GB10 scores 114648 against the T4's 72190, a delta of 58.8%. The T4's Vulkan score is notably higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting better Vulkan driver optimization, but it still falls well short of the GB10. The T4's Vulkan result places it near the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 (68562, delta -2.7%) and the Intel Arc A770 (68809, delta -3%), while the GB10 maintains its position above all its nearest rivals in this test.

The GB10's percentile rank of 95 versus the T4's 90 reflects the overall performance hierarchy. The average benchmark scores confirm the gap: 117393 for the GB10 versus 66733 for the T4, a difference of roughly 76%. The GB10's nearest rivals cluster within a narrow band (113944 to 118976), while the T4's rivals span a wider range (65095 to 68809), indicating that the T4 sits in a more contested performance tier.

The data shows a clear generational leap. The GB10's compute resources dwarf the T4's, and the benchmark results confirm that the architectural changes from Turing to Blackwell 2.0 deliver substantial gains in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The T4's higher memory bandwidth and lower power draw do not compensate for its older core design, and its end-of-life status means the GB10 represents the forward-looking option for new deployments.