GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla P4 and NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB represent two distinct eras of NVIDIA professional hardware, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data reveals a generational shift in compute capability, memory technology, and feature support, with the A2000 demonstrating a decisive performance advantage in the available benchmarks. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, application-specific strengths, and architectural differences to provide a clear picture of where each card stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is not close. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998 points, which is a substantial 47.8% higher than the Tesla P4’s 34,947 points. In percentage terms, the A2000 delivers nearly double the raw compute throughput in this workload. This delta is far larger than the differences seen between either card and its closest rivals, indicating that the architectural gap between Pascal and Ampere is the dominant factor here.

Contextualizing the Tesla P4’s score, it sits at an average benchmark score of 37,628, which places it at the 81st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are incredibly tight: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 scores 37,648 (a mere 0.1% difference), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 scores 37,507 (0.3% behind). This suggests the Tesla P4 is a well-balanced performer in its era, matching modern consumer cards in aggregate. However, its individual OpenCL score of 34,947 is below its own average, hinting that its compute-heavy performance is not its primary strength.

The RTX A2000 12 GB, conversely, has an average benchmark score of 34,154, which is lower than the Tesla P4’s average despite winning the head-to-head test. This paradox is explained by its percentile ranking: it sits at the 79th percentile, slightly below the P4. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133, a 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (34,207, a 0.2% difference). The A2000’s OpenCL score of 66,998 is roughly double its average, suggesting that this specific benchmark plays heavily to its architectural strengths, such as its dedicated Tensor Cores and higher FP32 throughput.

The 47.8% delta in OpenCL is a massive swing. For comparison, the largest delta among the Tesla P4’s rivals is just 1.3% (vs. the AMD Radeon PRO W6400), and for the A2000, it is 0.6% (vs. the NVIDIA TITAN V). This means the performance gap between the two cards in this test is an order of magnitude larger than typical competitive differences, reinforcing that this is a generational leap rather than a minor spec bump.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB wins the only available head-to-head benchmark, taking the single win in the wins column. Its 66,998 OpenCL score indicates a strong advantage in general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, likely due to its higher FP32 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS and 1:1 FP16 ratio. The A2000’s architecture includes 26 RT Cores and 104 Tensor Cores, which are absent on the Tesla P4, making it the clear choice for any task that can utilize these dedicated units, such as ray tracing or AI inference acceleration.

The Tesla P4, while losing the compute test, still holds its ground in terms of aggregate performance. Its average benchmark score of 37,628 is higher than the A2000’s average of 34,154. This suggests that in a broader suite of tests, likely including graphics and legacy workloads, the P4 remains competitive. Its higher pixel rate of 71.30 GPixel/s versus the A2000’s 57.60 GPixel/s indicates the P4 excels at fill-rate-bound tasks, such as traditional rasterization at high resolutions. Additionally, its texture rate of 178.2 GTexel/s outpaces the A2000’s 124.8 GTexel/s, giving it an edge in texture-heavy rendering scenarios.

The Tesla P4 also benefits from a wider 256-bit memory bus, which, despite slower GDDR5 memory, provides a more balanced memory subsystem for certain access patterns. In contrast, the A2000’s narrower 192-bit bus is compensated by faster GDDR6 memory, yielding higher overall bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s. Therefore, the A2000 wins in memory-bandwidth-bound tasks, while the P4 may have an advantage in latency-sensitive or fill-rate-limited workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict for users prioritizing compute performance: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB is the superior choice. Its 47.8% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test, combined with its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 performance, makes it substantially more capable for modern compute and AI workloads. The presence of RT and Tensor Cores further cements its position for future-proofing, as these features are non-existent on the Tesla P4. The A2000’s launch MSRP was 449 USD, which is a relevant data point for historical context.

However, for users focused on legacy graphics workloads or rasterization-heavy tasks, the Tesla P4 is not obsolete. Its higher average benchmark score (37,628 vs. 34,154) and superior pixel/texture rates suggest it can still handle traditional rendering efficiently. Its single-slot design and lack of display outputs make it suitable for headless compute servers, but its end-of-life status and 2016 release date mean it lacks modern API support, such as DirectX 12 Ultimate, which the A2000 offers.

The A2000’s 12 GB VRAM capacity is 50% larger than the P4’s 8 GB, which is critical for large datasets or high-resolution textures. For any buyer choosing between these two today, the RTX A2000 is the data-backed winner for general compute and modern workloads, while the Tesla P4 only makes sense if the specific task is fill-rate-bound and requires no feature beyond DirectX 12_1.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher score in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998, which is 47.8% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla P4’s score of 34,947.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card, and how do they compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Tesla P4 has an average score of 37,628, placing it 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070. The RTX A2000 has an average score of 34,154, which is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX A1000.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Tesla P4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what is the memory type?

A: The Tesla P4 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the RTX A2000 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The Tesla P4’s GP104 chip has a density of 22.9M transistors per mm², while the RTX A2000’s GA106 chip has a density of 43.5M transistors per mm².

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The RTX A2000 has a boost clock of 1200 MHz, which is higher than the Tesla P4’s boost clock of 1114 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Tesla P4 uses the GP104 chip based on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The Pascal architecture lacks dedicated RT and Tensor Cores, which is evident in the null values for those fields. Its FP16 performance is severely limited, rated at 89.12 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, meaning FP16 compute is a fraction of FP32.

The RTX A2000, in contrast, uses the GA106 chip based on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This chip packs 12,000 million transistors into a smaller 276 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 43.5M per mm². The Ampere architecture introduces 26 RT Cores and 104 Tensor Cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads. Crucially, its FP16 performance is 7.987 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, matching its FP32 output, which is a massive upgrade for mixed-precision computing.

The process node difference is significant: 16 nm versus 8 nm. This allows the Ampere chip to pack 66.7% more transistors into a 12% smaller die. The foundation is also different, with TSMC for the P4 and Samsung for the A2000. Furthermore, the Tesla P4’s generation is listed as "Tesla Pascal (Pxx)", while the A2000 is "Workstation Ampere (Ax000)", reflecting their different product lines. The P4’s predecessor is Tesla Maxwell, and its successor is Tesla Volta; the A2000’s predecessor is Quadro Turing, and its successor is Workstation Ada.

Specification Differences

The specifications reveal clear generational improvements for the RTX A2000. Starting with memory, the P4 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The A2000 offers 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A2000 has 50% more capacity and 49.8% more bandwidth, despite a narrower bus, thanks to faster memory clocks (12 Gbps effective vs. 6 Gbps effective).

Compute resources differ substantially. The Tesla P4 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RTX A2000 has 3,328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. While the A2000 has 30% more shading units, it has fewer TMUs and ROPs, which explains its lower pixel rate (57.60 GPixel/s vs. 71.30 GPixel/s) and texture rate (124.8 GTexel/s vs. 178.2 GTexel/s). However, the A2000’s FP32 performance is 40% higher at 7.987 TFLOPS versus 5.704 TFLOPS.

Clock speeds and power are also different. The P4 has a base clock of 886 MHz and a boost of 1114 MHz, while the A2000 has a lower base of 562 MHz but a higher boost of 1200 MHz. The TDP is similar, with the P4 at 75 W and the A2000 at 70 W, and both have no power connectors and suggest a 250 W PSU. The A2000 is dual-slot, whereas the P4 is single-slot. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the P4 versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the A2000. Most notably, the P4 has no display outputs, while the A2000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Finally, the A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P4 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).