NVIDIA L4 vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two NVIDIA workstation cards, and the RTX A4500 is the clear winner in the two shared tests. The RTX A4500 takes both head-to-head victories: it scores 141,837 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the L4's 140,838, a 0.7% margin, and it widens that lead substantially in Geekbench Vulkan with 129,980 against 121,306, a 6.7% advantage. The L4 wins zero head-to-head tests.

However, the aggregate picture tells a more nuanced story. The L4's average benchmark score of 131,072 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A4500's average of 91,671 sits in the 93rd percentile. That difference is explained by the RTX A4500's additional 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 3,196, which drags down its average. When comparing only the overlapping Geekbench tests, the two cards are remarkably close — the A4500 edges ahead by less than one percent in OpenCL and under seven percent in Vulkan. The L4 is a compute-focused accelerator with no display outputs, while the A4500 is a full workstation GPU with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, so their benchmark profiles reflect different design priorities.

For OpenCL compute workloads, the A4500 holds a slim but real edge. For Vulkan graphics tasks, the A4500's lead is more pronounced. The L4's single-slot, 72-watt design and lack of display outputs suggest it targets dense server deployments rather than interactive workstations, which explains why it loses the graphics-oriented tests despite its higher transistor density and newer architecture.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational and physical. The L4 uses the AD104 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die for a density of 121.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The RTX A4500 uses the GA102 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, with 28,300 million transistors spread across a much larger 628 mm² die, yielding just 45.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The L4 is more than 2.7 times denser per area, a direct consequence of the newer node.

Core counts are similar but not identical. The L4 has 7,424 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, 80 ROPs, 60 ray tracing cores, and 240 tensor cores. The A4500 has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 224 tensor cores. The L4 leads in every compute-oriented count except ROPs, where the A4500's 96 exceed the L4's 80. Yet the L4's clock advantage is decisive: it boosts to 2040 MHz versus the A4500's 1650 MHz, and its base clock of 795 MHz is lower than the A4500's 1050 MHz. The result is 30.29 TFLOPS FP32 for the L4 against 23.65 TFLOPS for the A4500 — a 28% raw compute advantage for the L4, despite losing in the Geekbench tests.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The L4 offers 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 300.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the A4500 has 20 GB on a 320-bit bus with 640.0 GB/s bandwidth — more than double the bandwidth. The L4's memory runs at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), the A4500's at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). For bandwidth-hungry workloads, the A4500 is clearly superior, but the L4's additional 4 GB of capacity favors larger datasets.

The power envelope is the starkest difference. The L4 draws 72 W with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, fitting in a single slot at 169 mm length. The A4500 consumes 200 W, requires a single 8-pin connector and a 550 W PSU, occupies two slots, and stretches to 267 mm. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16 and support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A4500 is end-of-life, while the L4 remains active production.

# The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: pick the RTX A4500 for interactive workstation graphics and memory-bandwidth-bound tasks; pick the L4 for dense server deployments where compute density and power efficiency matter more than raw graphics performance.

The A4500 wins both shared benchmarks, including a 6.7% Vulkan lead that reflects its workstation-oriented design. Its 640.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the L4's 300.1 GB/s, and its 96 ROPs exceed the L4's 80, supporting better fill-rate-bound rendering. The A4500's 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it a functional workstation card, whereas the L4 has no display outputs at all.

The L4 counters with architectural advantages that don't show up in these particular tests. Its 30.29 TFLOPS FP32 is 28% higher, its 24 GB memory capacity is 20% larger, and its 72 W power draw is 64% lower than the A4500's 200 W. The L4's 95th percentile ranking versus the A4500's 93rd reflects its stronger average across a broader benchmark set, driven by its compute-heavy profile. The L4 is also newer (March 2023 versus November 2021), built on a more advanced 5 nm node, and remains in active production.

For anyone needing a GPU in a workstation with monitors attached, the A4500 is the data-backed choice. For server racks where power, space, and compute throughput are paramount, the L4's specifications make it the rational selection — even though the available benchmarks don't capture its strengths.

# FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 141,837 versus the NVIDIA L4's 140,838, a 0.7% advantage for the A4500.

Q: How much does the A4500 lead in Vulkan performance?

A: The A4500 scores 129,980 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 121,306 for the L4, a 6.7% margin.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A4500 offers 640.0 GB/s across a 320-bit bus, more than double the L4's 300.1 GB/s on a 192-bit bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The L4 draws 72 W with no power connectors, while the A4500 consumes 200 W and requires a single 8-pin connector.

Q: Does the L4 support display outputs?

A: No, the L4 has no display outputs, while the A4500 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: Which card has higher raw FP32 compute?

A: The L4 delivers 30.29 TFLOPS FP32 versus 23.65 TFLOPS for the A4500, a 28% advantage for the L4.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks tell a consistent story, but with different magnitudes. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A4500 scores 141,837 against the L4's 140,838, a difference of 999 points or 0.7%. This is a near-tie — within the margin of run-to-run variance for most systems. The A4500's higher memory bandwidth likely compensates for the L4's superior FP32 throughput in this particular workload.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a more decisive gap. The A4500's 129,980 beats the L4's 121,306 by 8,674 points, a 6.7% lead. Vulkan workloads often stress memory bandwidth and ROP throughput, both of which favor the A4500: its 640.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 300.1 GB/s, and its 96 ROPs versus 80. The L4's higher clock speed and newer architecture cannot overcome these structural disadvantages in graphics-centric rendering.

The L4's only benchmark results are these two Geekbench tests, which produce an average score of 131,072. The A4500 adds a third result — 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 3,196 — which pulls its average down to 91,671. This third test is not a head-to-head comparison, but it explains why the L4 ranks in the 95th percentile of all GPUs while the A4500 sits in the 93rd. If the A4500's average were computed only from the two Geekbench tests, it would be 135,908 — actually ahead of the L4's 131,072.

The nearest rivals for each card reinforce their positioning. The L4's closest competitor is the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti at 131,938 (0.7% ahead of the L4), followed by the RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 (3.1% ahead) and the A10M at 135,230 (3.1% ahead). The A4500's nearest rival is the RTX A4500 Mobile at 91,134 (0.6% behind), then the Radeon Instinct MI60 at 92,466 (0.9% ahead) and the Quadro GP100 at 87,445 (4.8% behind). These rival sets show the L4 competing in a higher average-score tier, despite losing the shared tests.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA L4 | NVIDIA RTX A4500 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Ampere |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 28,300 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.8M / mm² | 45.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 795 MHz | 1050 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2040 MHz | 1650 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 20 GB |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 300.1 GB/s | 640.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 7424 | 7168 |

| TMUs | 240 | 224 |

| ROPs | 80 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 60 | 56 |

| Tensor Cores | 240 | 224 |

| Pixel Rate | 163.2 GPixel/s | 158.4 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 489.6 GTexel/s | 369.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 30.29 TFLOPS | 23.65 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 30.29 TFLOPS (1:1) | 23.65 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 72 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 169 mm (6.7 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 56 mm (2.2 inches) | 112 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-03-20 | 2021-11-22 |