NVIDIA RTX A2000 vs NVIDIA Tesla T4 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA Tesla T4 compare to the NVIDIA RTX A2000 in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Tesla T4 has an average benchmark score of 66733, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The RTX A2000 has an average score of 46043, placing it in the 85th percentile. Despite this large gap in average score, the head-to-head benchmark results are much closer, with each card winning one test.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The RTX A2000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 67695, which is 9.5% higher than the Tesla T4's score of 61276.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan performance?

A: The Tesla T4 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 72190, which is 4.5% higher than the RTX A2000's score of 69089.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Tesla T4 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in transistor density between the two architectures?

A: The Tesla T4, built on TSMC's 12 nm process, has a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The RTX A2000, built on Samsung's 8 nm process, has a much higher density of 43.5M per mm².

Q: What display outputs does each card offer?

A: The Tesla T4 has no display outputs, making it a compute-only accelerator. The RTX A2000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, allowing direct display connectivity.

Architecture Differences

The Tesla T4 and RTX A2000 represent two different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The T4 uses the TU104 chip based on the Turing architecture, part of the Tesla Turing (Txx) generation. The RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip based on the Ampere architecture, part of the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. This generational gap explains many of the differences in their feature sets and performance characteristics.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The T4 is built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die. The RTX A2000 is built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, with 12,000 million transistors on a smaller 276 mm² die. The result is a stark contrast in transistor density: 25.0M per mm² for the T4 versus 43.5M per mm² for the RTX A2000. The A2000 packs nearly the same transistor count into less than half the die area.

Shader configuration also differs. The T4 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RTX A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The A2000 has more shading units but fewer texture mapping units and ROPs. In ray tracing and tensor hardware, the T4 has 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, while the A2000 has 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores. The T4's tensor core count is substantially higher, which reflects its intended role in inference workloads.

Clock speeds reveal another divergence. The T4 has a base clock of 585 MHz and a boost clock of 1590 MHz. The RTX A2000 has a lower base clock of 562 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the A2000 achieves comparable FP32 performance due to its higher shading unit count. FP32 throughput is 8.141 TFLOPS for the T4 and 7.987 TFLOPS for the A2000, nearly identical. FP16 performance differs more notably: the T4 delivers 16.28 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The T4 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A2000 offers only 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The T4's memory is clocked at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective), while the A2000's memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The A2000 has faster memory clocks but fewer memory chips and a narrower bus, resulting in lower overall bandwidth.

Both cards share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. They also share a 70 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W, and neither requires power connectors. Physical dimensions are nearly identical in length at 168 mm (6.6 inches) for the T4 and 167 mm (6.6 inches) for the A2000. The T4 is single-slot, while the A2000 is dual-slot. The T4 has no display outputs, while the A2000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The bus interface differs as well: the T4 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The T4 was released on 2018-09-12, and the A2000 was released on 2021-08-09.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head benchmark results, with each winning one of the two recorded tests. This balance makes the comparison particularly interesting because the overall average scores suggest a different story than the direct comparisons.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 takes the win with a score of 67695, beating the Tesla T4's 61276 by 9.5%. This is a substantial margin and shows that the Ampere architecture's higher shading unit count translates into strong compute performance in OpenCL workloads. The A2000's 3328 shading units versus the T4's 2560 likely contribute to this advantage, despite the A2000's lower boost clock of 1200 MHz compared to 1590 MHz.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Tesla T4 reverses the result. The T4 scores 72190, beating the A2000's 69089 by 4.5%. Vulkan workloads often benefit from different aspects of the hardware, and here the T4's higher boost clock and larger memory bus may play a role. The T4's 256-bit memory bus and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth could provide an advantage in memory-intensive Vulkan tasks.

It is notably the average benchmark scores do not align with these head-to-head results. The T4 has an average score of 66733, while the A2000 has an average score of 46043. This discrepancy suggests that the A2000's benchmark results are more variable across different tests, or that the two Geekbench tests do not capture the full performance profile of either card. The T4's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon VII with an average score of 66004 and a delta of 1.1%, the NVIDIA Tesla P40 with 65095 and a delta of 2.5%, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 with 68562 and a delta of -2.7%, and the Intel Arc A770 with 68809 and a delta of -3%. The A2000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation with 45972 and a delta of 0.2%, the Intel Arc A730M with 45592 and a delta of 1%, the AMD Radeon RX 5600M with 46601 and a delta of -1.2%, and the Intel Arc A530M with 46614 and a delta of -1.2%.

The T4's average score places it 45% above the A2000's average score, yet the direct comparisons show only a 9.5% difference in OpenCL and a 4.5% difference in Vulkan. This suggests that the A2000 performs relatively well in the specific tests that were run head-to-head, but poorly in other benchmarks that contribute to its overall average. The T4's 90th percentile ranking versus the A2000's 85th percentile ranking reinforces its higher standing in the broader database.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. For compute-heavy workloads measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 is the stronger performer, achieving a 9.5% higher score than the Tesla T4. For Vulkan-based workloads, the Tesla T4 wins with a 4.5% advantage. Users who prioritize OpenCL compute should lean toward the A2000, while those whose applications rely on Vulkan should favor the T4.

Memory capacity is a decisive factor for certain workloads. The T4's 16 GB of VRAM dwarfs the A2000's 6 GB. For tasks that require large models or datasets to reside in GPU memory, the T4 is the only viable choice between these two. The A2000's 6 GB may be insufficient for memory-intensive inference or rendering tasks, even if its raw compute performance in OpenCL is higher.

The T4 also offers substantially more tensor cores: 320 versus 104. This makes the T4 better suited for tensor-based workloads such as deep learning inference, despite the A2000's newer architecture. The T4's FP16 throughput of 16.28 TFLOPS further supports its role in mixed-precision compute, whereas the A2000's FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 7.987 TFLOPS.

The RTX A2000 counters with display outputs, 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, making it suitable for workstation use where visual output is required. The T4 has no display outputs, confirming its position as a server or datacenter accelerator. The A2000 also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, offering twice the bus bandwidth of the T4's PCIe 3.0 x16, which can benefit data transfer in systems that support PCIe 4.0.

The T4's end-of-life production status and earlier release date of 2018-09-12 mean it belongs to an older generation, but its 90th percentile ranking indicates it remains competitive. The A2000, released 2021-08-09, is also end-of-life but represents a more recent design. Its launch MSRP was 449 USD, which can be stated as a reference point.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: TU104 (T4) versus GA106 (A2000)
• Architecture: Turing (T4) versus Ampere (A2000)
• Generation: Tesla Turing (Txx) (T4) versus Workstation Ampere (Ax000) (A2000)
• Process node: 12 nm (T4) versus 8 nm (A2000)
• Foundry: TSMC (T4) versus Samsung (A2000)
• Transistors: 13,600 million (T4) versus 12,000 million (A2000)
• Die size: 545 mm² (T4) versus 276 mm² (A2000)
• Transistor density: 25.0M / mm² (T4) versus 43.5M / mm² (A2000)
• Base clock: 585 MHz (T4) versus 562 MHz (A2000)
• Boost clock: 1590 MHz (T4) versus 1200 MHz (A2000)
• Memory clock: 1250 MHz 10 Gbps effective (T4) versus 1500 MHz 12 Gbps effective (A2000)
• Memory size: 16 GB (T4) versus 6 GB (A2000)
• Memory bus width: 256 bit (T4) versus 192 bit (A2000)
• Memory bandwidth: 320.0 GB/s (T4) versus 288.0 GB/s (A2000)
• Shading units: 2560 (T4) versus 3328 (A2000)
• TMUs: 160 (T4) versus 104 (A2000)
• ROPs: 64 (T4) versus 48 (A2000)
• RT cores: 40 (T4) versus 26 (A2000)
• Tensor cores: 320 (T4) versus 104 (A2000)
• Pixel rate: 101.8 GPixel/s (T4) versus 57.60 GPixel/s (A2000)
• Texture rate: 254.4 GTexel/s (T4) versus 124.8 GTexel/s (A2000)
• FP32: 8.141 TFLOPS (T4) versus 7.987 TFLOPS (A2000)
• FP16: 16.28 TFLOPS 2:1 (T4) versus 7.987 TFLOPS 1:1 (A2000)
• Slot width: Single-slot (T4) versus Dual-slot (A2000)
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 (T4) versus PCIe 4.0 x16 (A2000)
• Display outputs: No outputs (T4) versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a (A2000)
• Dimensions: 168 mm 6.6 inches (T4) versus 167 mm 6.6 inches, 69 mm 2.7 inches height (A2000)
• Release date: 2018-09-12 (T4) versus 2021-08-09 (A2000)
• Predecessor: Tesla Volta (T4) versus Quadro Turing (A2000)
• Successor: Server Ampere (T4) versus Workstation Ada (A2000)

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Tesla T4: The T4 wins in Geekbench Vulkan with a 4.5% higher score (72190 versus 69089). It also dominates in memory capacity with 16 GB versus 6 GB, making it the clear choice for workloads that require large memory footprints. The T4 has a wider 256-bit memory bus and higher bandwidth at 320.0 GB/s. It offers more RT cores (40 versus 26) and far more tensor cores (320 versus 104), along with double the FP16 throughput at 16.28 TFLOPS. The T4 also achieves higher pixel rate (101.8 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (254.4 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s). Its single-slot design and no display outputs indicate a server-oriented form factor.

NVIDIA RTX A2000: The A2000 wins in Geekbench OpenCL with a 9.5% higher score (67695 versus 61276). It has more shading units (3328 versus 2560), which likely drives its OpenCL advantage. The A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, providing twice the bus bandwidth of the T4's PCIe 3.0 x16. It includes 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, enabling direct display connectivity. The A2000 is built on a newer 8 nm process with higher transistor density (43.5M per mm² versus 25.0M per mm²) and has faster memory clocks at 12 Gbps effective versus 10 Gbps. Its dual-slot design and workstation generation classification (Workstation Ampere) position it for professional desktop use.