NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile vs NVIDIA Tesla T4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, which takes both of the head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The largest margin appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the A4500 Mobile scores 105,307 against the Tesla T4's 61,276, a delta of 71.9%. That is a substantial gap, indicating the Ampere-based mobile part holds a massive compute advantage in this particular workload. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the A4500 Mobile again leads, scoring 76,960 versus 72,190, a much narrower 6.6% advantage. While the Vulkan result is far closer, the A4500 Mobile still wins outright, and the data records 2 wins for the A4500 Mobile and 0 for the Tesla T4.

Looking at the broader database context, the A4500 Mobile's average benchmark score sits at 91,134, which places it in the 93rd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the desktop NVIDIA RTX A4500 (average score 91,671, a delta of -0.6%), the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92,466, delta -1.4%), the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445, delta 4.2%), and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108, delta 4.6%). In other words, the A4500 Mobile is essentially on par with its desktop namesake, within a rounding error, and it sits slightly below the MI60 but comfortably ahead of the GP100 and W7600.

The Tesla T4, by contrast, records an average benchmark score of 66,733, placing it in the 90th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon VII (66,004, delta 1.1%), the NVIDIA Tesla P40 (65,095, delta 2.5%), the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 (68,562, delta -2.7%), and the Intel Arc A770 (68,809, delta -3%). The T4's position among these rivals is tightly clustered, with deltas within roughly 3% in either direction. This suggests the T4 is a mid-pack performer relative to its peer group, whereas the A4500 Mobile sits at the top of its own peer group.

The Vulkan test is worth extra attention. A 6.6% delta is modest, and the absolute scores (76,960 vs 72,190) are within a range where real-world differences might be less pronounced. However, the OpenCL test is decisive: a 71.9% lead is not a marginal edge but a dominant one. The data indicates that in raw compute throughput, the A4500 Mobile outclasses the T4 by a wide margin, while in graphics-oriented Vulkan workloads, the two are much closer.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The RTX A4500 Mobile is built on the GA104 chip using the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 44.4 million per mm². The Tesla T4, in contrast, uses the TU104 chip with the older Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It contains 13,600 million transistors on a larger 545 mm² die, with a lower transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². The A4500 Mobile's newer node and higher density are consistent with its higher performance per unit area.

Core counts differ significantly. The A4500 Mobile has 5,888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, 46 ray tracing cores, and 184 tensor cores. The Tesla T4 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 40 ray tracing cores, and 320 tensor cores. Notably, the T4 has more tensor cores (320 vs 184), but the A4500 Mobile has far more shading units and ROPs. The T4's FP16 throughput is 16.28 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the A4500 Mobile's FP16 is 17.66 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The A4500 Mobile's FP32 is 17.66 TFLOPS, more than double the T4's 8.141 TFLOPS. This explains the large OpenCL gap, as OpenCL often stresses FP32 compute.

Memory configurations are similar in size but not in bandwidth. Both cards have 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The A4500 Mobile runs its memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), yielding 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The T4 runs at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective), producing 320.0 GB/s. The A4500 Mobile thus offers 60% more memory bandwidth, a key factor in compute workloads. The T4 compensates with a lower 70 W TDP versus the A4500 Mobile's 140 W, and the T4 is a single-slot card with a 168 mm length, while the A4500 Mobile's dimensions are listed as portable device dependent. The T4 also has no display outputs, whereas the A4500 Mobile's outputs are likewise dependent on the host device.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The T4 has a lower base clock (585 MHz vs 930 MHz) but a higher boost clock (1590 MHz vs 1500 MHz). At sustained boost, the T4 can run faster per clock, but it has far fewer cores. The T4's pixel rate is 101.8 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 254.4 GTexel/s, while the A4500 Mobile achieves 144.0 GPixel/s and 276.0 GTexel/s. The A4500 Mobile leads in both fill rates, though the texture rate gap (276.0 vs 254.4) is modest. The T4's PCIe interface is 3.0 x16, while the A4500 Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x16, doubling the bus bandwidth available for data transfers.

Where Each One Wins

The A4500 Mobile wins decisively in raw compute and memory bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput of 17.66 TFLOPS, memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s, and 71.9% OpenCL lead over the T4 make it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks like simulation, rendering, or general-purpose GPU workloads. Its higher pixel rate (144.0 GPixel/s) and texture rate (276.0 GTexel/s) also favor graphics-heavy applications, such as real-time visualization or high-resolution rendering. The A4500 Mobile's 96 ROPs, compared to the T4's 64, further support higher resolution output and more efficient rasterization.

The Tesla T4 wins in efficiency and form factor. Its 70 W TDP is exactly half of the A4500 Mobile's 140 W, making it far easier to cool in dense server environments. Its single-slot, 168 mm length design allows it to fit into space-constrained chassis, and it requires no power connectors, drawing all power from the PCIe slot. The T4 also has more tensor cores (320 vs 184) and higher FP16 throughput (16.28 TFLOPS), though the A4500 Mobile's FP16 is comparable at 17.66 TFLOPS. For workloads that rely on tensor operations and can use FP16, the T4's tensor core count may offer an advantage, especially given its lower power draw. The T4's Vulkan score, just 6.6% behind the A4500 Mobile, suggests it remains competitive in graphics-adjacent tasks despite its older architecture.

The data also shows the T4's release date of September 2018 versus the A4500 Mobile's March 2022, so the T4 is a more mature product with a longer track record. Both are marked end-of-life, but the T4's lower power envelope and compact size make it suitable for inference or light-duty server workloads where absolute performance is secondary to density and thermal management. The A4500 Mobile, by contrast, is positioned for mobile workstations where performance is the priority and the chassis can handle 140 W.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 91,134, compared to the NVIDIA Tesla T4's 66,733, a difference of roughly 36%.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the OpenCL test?

A: The A4500 Mobile scores 105,307 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the T4 scores 61,276, giving the A4500 Mobile a 71.9% lead.

Q: Are they close in the Vulkan test?

A: Yes, the A4500 Mobile scores 76,960 versus 72,190 for the T4, a delta of only 6.6%.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The A4500 Mobile has 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the T4 has 320.0 GB/s, so the A4500 Mobile offers 60% more.

Q: Does the Tesla T4 have any advantages?

A: The T4 has a lower 70 W TDP, a single-slot form factor with a 168 mm length, and more tensor cores (320 vs 184), plus higher FP16 throughput at 16.28 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the process nodes for each?

A: The A4500 Mobile uses an 8 nm process from Samsung, while the T4 uses a 12 nm process from TSMC.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile is the faster GPU in nearly every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (91,134 vs 66,733), higher FP32 throughput (17.66 TFLOPS vs 8.141 TFLOPS), higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s vs 320.0 GB/s), more shading units (5,888 vs 2,560), and more ROPs (96 vs 64). Its 71.9% OpenCL lead is the single largest margin in the comparison, indicating a dominant advantage in compute-heavy workloads. For any application that prioritizes raw performance, the A4500 Mobile is the data-backed choice.

The Tesla T4, however, is not without a role. Its 70 W TDP and single-slot design make it far easier to deploy in multi-GPU servers or compact chassis, and its 320 tensor cores exceed the A4500 Mobile's 184. The T4's FP16 throughput of 16.28 TFLOPS is close to the A4500 Mobile's 17.66 TFLOPS, so in tensor-heavy workloads that leverage FP16, the T4 may hold its own. Its Vulkan score is only 6.6% behind, so for graphics tasks that use Vulkan, the T4 remains viable. The T4's 2.5% lead over the Tesla P40 and its 1.1% lead over the AMD Radeon VII show it is competitive within its own class, even if that class is a tier below the A4500 Mobile.

In practice, the choice comes down to the deployment environment. The A4500 Mobile suits mobile workstations where performance is paramount and 140 W is manageable. The T4 suits server racks where power density and space are at a premium. The A4500 Mobile's 93rd percentile ranking versus the T4's 90th percentile reinforces the performance hierarchy, but the T4's lower power draw is a legitimate counterweight. The data does not support the T4 as a performance equal, but it does support it as a efficiency-focused alternative.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile | NVIDIA Tesla T4 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Turing |

| Chip | GA104 | TU104 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 17,400 million | 13,600 million |

| Die Size | 392 mm² | 545 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 44.4M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 930 MHz | 585 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1500 MHz | 1590 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 320.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 5888 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 184 | 160 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 46 | 40 |

| Tensor Cores | 184 | 320 |

| Pixel Rate | 144.0 GPixel/s | 101.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 276.0 GTexel/s | 254.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 17.66 TFLOPS | 8.141 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 17.66 TFLOPS (1:1) | 16.28 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 140 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| Length | Not specified | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2022-03-21 | 2018-09-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing-M | Tesla Volta |

| Successor | Ada-MW | Server Ampere |