NVIDIA RTX A2000 vs NVIDIA Tesla P4 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along generational and architectural lines. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins every recorded head-to-head test, taking 2 wins out of 2 possible comparisons. The Tesla P4 does not win a single recorded benchmark in the database. This is not a close contest in raw compute terms; the A2000 leads by substantial margins in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.

Looking at the broader database context, the A2000 sits at the 85th percentile among all GPUs, while the Tesla P4 sits at the 81st percentile. That gap of four percentile points might sound modest, but the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The A2000 posts an average benchmark score of 46043, while the Tesla P4 averages 37628. That is a difference of roughly 22% in average performance across all recorded tests, a meaningful separation for users who rely on general-purpose compute.

The A2000 also has a much wider benchmark footprint. It appears in three recorded tests: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan. The Tesla P4 only has two recorded tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. That means the A2000 can be evaluated in a DirectX 12 scenario where the Tesla P4 has no recorded presence at all. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1345 is a data point that simply does not exist for the Pascal card.

For use-case planning, the A2000 is the clear choice for any compute workload that leans on OpenCL or Vulkan, and it is the only one of the two with a recorded DirectX 12 result. The Tesla P4, by contrast, shows its age in these tests, trailing by nearly double in OpenCL and by roughly 71% in Vulkan. If a workload depends on modern API features, the A2000 is the only card with evidence to support it.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras, and the data reflects that. The RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The Tesla P4 uses the GP104 chip on Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. That process gap alone explains a great deal of the efficiency and density difference. The A2000 packs 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The Tesla P4 contains 7,200 million transistors across a larger 314 mm² die, for a density of just 22.9 million per square millimeter. The A2000 nearly doubles the transistor density, which is exactly what the newer process node should deliver.

The compute resources differ substantially. The A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The Tesla P4 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. So the A2000 has more shaders, while the Tesla P4 has more texture units and ROPs. That is an unusual split. The Tesla P4's higher texture rate of 178.2 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s for the A2000 suggests it was designed for fill-rate-heavy workloads in its era. The A2000 compensates with a much higher shader count and dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware.

Ray tracing and tensor cores are the biggest architectural differentiators. The A2000 includes 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores. The Tesla P4 has neither. It predates both technologies, so it cannot accelerate ray-traced workloads or tensor-based AI inference in hardware. The A2000's FP16 throughput is listed as 7.987 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it can process half-precision at the same rate as single-precision. The Tesla P4's FP16 is a paltry 89.12 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, which is effectively negligible. Any workload that uses FP16, whether for machine learning inference or certain graphics effects, will see an enormous advantage on the A2000.

Memory architecture also diverges. The A2000 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla P4 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s. The A2000 has less capacity but much higher bandwidth. The Tesla P4 has more capacity but slower memory. For large datasets that fit within 6 GB, the A2000 will move data faster. For datasets that exceed 6 GB, the Tesla P4's extra 2 GB becomes relevant, though the bandwidth penalty is steep.

The Tesla P4 is a single-slot card with no display outputs, reflecting its intended role as a datacenter inference accelerator. The A2000 is a dual-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it usable as a workstation graphics card. The A2000 also runs PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Tesla P4 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Both cards draw power from the slot alone, with no external power connectors, and both have a suggested PSU rating of 250 W. The A2000's TDP is 70 W, slightly lower than the Tesla P4's 75 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these cards, and both go decisively to the RTX A2000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A2000 scores 67695 against the Tesla P4's 34947. That is a 93.7% advantage, almost double the score. The gap is so large that the Tesla P4 would need to nearly double its score just to match the A2000. For OpenCL compute workloads, the A2000 is in a different performance class entirely.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the A2000 scores 69089 against the Tesla P4's 40309. The delta is 71.4%, still a massive margin. Vulkan is a lower-level API that tends to expose raw hardware capabilities, so this result indicates that the A2000's combination of more shaders, faster memory, and newer architecture translates directly into compute throughput. The Tesla P4's Vulkan score of 40309 is respectable for a 2016-era card, but it is simply outclassed.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test is listed only for the A2000, with a score of 1345. The Tesla P4 has no recorded result for this test. Since the Tesla P4 only supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1, while the A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate at feature level 12_2, it likely could not run the same workload meaningfully. The A2000's support for ray tracing and mesh shaders, both part of DirectX 12 Ultimate, gives it a feature-set advantage that the Pascal card cannot match.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides additional context. The A2000's average score of 46043 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation, within 1% of the Intel Arc A730M, and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600M and Intel Arc A530M, both of which trail by 1.2%. The Tesla P4's average score of 37628, meanwhile, sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070, within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W6400. These rival clusters show that the Tesla P4's performance neighborhood is populated by mid-range consumer and workstation cards from a later generation, while the A2000 sits among much more capable hardware.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The RTX A2000 outperforms the Tesla P4 in every recorded benchmark, often by margins exceeding 70%. Any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan should use the A2000 without hesitation. The A2000 also brings modern features that the Tesla P4 lacks entirely: ray tracing cores, tensor cores, FP16 at 1:1 ratio, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The A2000's 85th percentile ranking versus the Tesla P4's 81st percentile confirms that the overall performance gap is real and consistent across the database.

The Tesla P4 does have two arguments in its favor. First, it offers 8 GB of memory versus 6 GB, so workloads that need more than 6 GB of memory can still consider the Pascal card. Second, its higher texture rate of 167.2 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s suggests it was built for a different kind of workload, one that favors fill-rate throughput rather than shader throughput. For users locked into a Tesla P4-specific deployments or workloads that genuinely require more than 6 GB would be the only scenarios where choosing the P4 makes sense.

The A2000 is the better card for almost every purpose. It is faster, more efficient, more feature-rich, and built on a process node that is two generations ahead. The Tesla P4's end-of-life status and lack of display outputs further narrow its appeal. The data shows a clear winner, and it is the RTX A2000.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The RTX A2000 scores 67695 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 93.7% higher than the Tesla P4's 34947.

Q: Does the Tesla P4 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Tesla P4 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX A2000 has 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A2000 has 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth with 6 GB of GDDR6. The Tesla P4 has 192.3 GB/s with 8 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Can the Tesla P4 be used for display output?

A: No. The Tesla P4 has no display outputs. The RTX A2000 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan compute?

A: The RTX A2000 scores 69089 in Geekbench Vulkan, 71.4% higher than the Tesla P4's 40309.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A2000 has an average benchmark score of 46043, compared to the Tesla P4's 37628.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A2000 | NVIDIA Tesla P4 |

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

| Chip | GA106 | GP104 |

| Architecture | Ampere | Pascal |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 16 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 12,000 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 562 MHz | 886 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 1114 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3328 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 104 | 160 |

| ROPs | 48 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 26 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 104 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 57.60 GPixel/s | 71.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 124.8 GTexel/s | 178.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.987 TFLOPS | 5.704 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) | 89.12 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 70 W | 75 W |

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

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Length | 167 mm (6.6 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2021-08-09 | 2016-09-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Tesla Maxwell |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | Tesla Volta |

| Launch MSRP | 449 USD | Not specified |