NVIDIA RTX A4500 vs NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A4500 and NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB represent two very different eras of GPU design. The A4500 is a modern workstation card built on a dense 8 nm process with a full feature set, while the P100 is a compute-focused accelerator from the Pascal generation. Benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the story is more nuanced when considering architecture and intended use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The RTX A4500 scores 141,837 points, while the Tesla P100 scores 79,605 points. This translates to a 78.2% advantage for the A4500, a massive gap that underscores the generational leap in compute capability. The A4500’s score is not just higher; it is nearly double that of the P100, indicating that in raw compute workloads, the newer architecture provides a substantial performance uplift.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the A4500’s average benchmark score of 91,671 places it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, scores 91,134, a delta of only 0.6% — essentially a statistical tie. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 scores 92,466, which is 0.9% higher than the A4500, showing that the A4500 is competitive with high-end compute accelerators from AMD. Against older workstation parts, the A4500 is 4.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445) and 5.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108).

The Tesla P100, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 79,605, placing it in the 92nd percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB, which scores 79,396 — a mere 0.3% difference, confirming that the 16 GB variant offers only a marginal performance edge over its smaller sibling. Interestingly, the P100’s score is 0.3% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79,842) and 0.8% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (78,940). The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X outperforms it by 1.7% with a score of 80,959.

These numbers reveal that the A4500 is not just faster; it operates in a different performance tier entirely. The 78.2% lead in the head-to-head benchmark is consistent with the overall average score gap, which is approximately 15% (91,671 vs. 79,605). The A4500’s FP32 compute rating of 23.65 TFLOPS versus the P100’s 9.526 TFLOPS further corroborates this, showing a 2.48x raw compute advantage that manifests in the benchmark results.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is clear for most users: the NVIDIA RTX A4500 is the superior card. It wins the only shared benchmark by a wide margin, has a higher average benchmark score, and sits in a higher percentile ranking. The A4500 is 78.2% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL, and its 93rd percentile placement versus the P100’s 92nd percentile shows it is more competitive against the entire GPU market.

However, the Tesla P100 is not without its merits. Its 16 GB of HBM2 memory provides a bandwidth of 732.2 GB/s, which is 14.4% higher than the A4500’s 640.0 GB/s. For workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, the P100 could potentially hold its own, despite its lower overall compute scores. The P100 also has a higher base clock (1190 MHz vs. 1050 MHz), though its boost clock is lower (1329 MHz vs. 1650 MHz).

For a user prioritizing raw compute performance, modern API support, and display outputs, the A4500 is the definitive pick. For a user with a legacy infrastructure built around PCIe 3.0 and a specific need for HBM2 bandwidth without any display requirements, the P100 remains functional, but the data suggests it is a significant compromise. The P100’s launch MSRP was 5,699 USD, but this is a historical figure that does not reflect current market conditions.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark. The RTX A4500 uses the GA102 chip built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, while the Tesla P100 uses the GP100 chip on a 16 nm process at TSMC. This process difference is a primary driver of performance disparity, allowing the A4500 to pack 28,300 million transistors onto a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1M per mm². The P100, with 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die, achieves a density of only 25.1M per mm².

The A4500 is based on the Ampere architecture, which brings dedicated RT cores (56) and Tensor cores (224). The P100, based on Pascal, has neither. This means the A4500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the P100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The A4500 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, whereas the P100 does FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the A4500’s FP16 performance is 23.65 TFLOPS versus the P100’s 19.05 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The A4500 uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, while the P100 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus. The P100’s wider bus gives it a bandwidth advantage (732.2 GB/s vs. 640.0 GB/s), but the A4500 compensates with a much higher memory clock (2000 MHz vs. 715 MHz) and GDDR6’s efficiency. The A4500 also has a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, doubling the bandwidth of the P100’s PCIe 3.0 x16 connection.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 is significantly ahead, with FP32 performance of 23.65 TFLOPS versus the Tesla P100’s 9.526 TFLOPS. This is reflected in the Geekbench OpenCL score, where the A4500 leads by 78.2%.

Q: Does the Tesla P100 have any advantage over the RTX A4500?

A: Yes, the P100 has a higher memory bandwidth of 732.2 GB/s compared to the A4500’s 640.0 GB/s, thanks to its HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus. It also has a higher base clock of 1190 MHz versus 1050 MHz.

Q: Are these cards still relevant for modern workloads?

A: The RTX A4500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, making it relevant for modern applications. The Tesla P100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, which is older but still functional for compute tasks. Both are end-of-life products.

Q: What is the difference in memory size and type?

A: The A4500 has 20 GB of GDDR6, while the P100 has 16 GB of HBM2. The P100’s HBM2 provides higher bandwidth, but the A4500 has more capacity and newer memory technology.

Q: Which card consumes more power?

A: The Tesla P100 has a TDP of 250 W, while the RTX A4500 has a lower TDP of 200 W. The P100’s suggested PSU is 600 W, versus 550 W for the A4500.

Q: Can the Tesla P100 output video to displays?

A: No, the Tesla P100 has no display outputs. The RTX A4500 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suitable for workstation use with monitors.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4500 wins in every compute benchmark category present in the data. It dominates in Geekbench OpenCL, has a higher average benchmark score, and occupies a higher percentile rank. Its 7168 shading units versus 3584 on the P100 provide double the shading throughput, and its 224 TMUs and 96 ROPs match the P100’s counts, but with higher clock speeds, the A4500 achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 158.4 GPixel/s and 369.6 GTexel/s versus 127.6 GPixel/s and 297.7 GTexel/s.

The A4500 also wins on feature support. It has RT cores and Tensor cores, which the P100 lacks entirely. This makes the A4500 suitable for ray-traced workloads and AI-accelerated tasks, while the P100 is purely a compute device. The A4500’s PCIe 4.0 interface and newer API support (Vulkan 1.4, DirectX 12 Ultimate) ensure compatibility with modern software stacks.

The Tesla P100 wins in memory bandwidth, offering 732.2 GB/s versus 640.0 GB/s. This could be advantageous in specific scientific computing tasks where data movement is the bottleneck. The P100 also has a higher base clock, but this does not translate to overall performance wins in the benchmark data. Its 16 GB of HBM2 memory, while smaller in capacity, provides a different memory profile that some legacy applications may prefer.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GA102 (A4500) vs. GP100 (P100)
• Architecture: Ampere vs. Pascal
• Process Node: 8 nm vs. 16 nm
• Foundry: Samsung vs. TSMC
• Transistors: 28,300 million vs. 15,300 million
• Die Size: 628 mm² vs. 610 mm²
• Transistor Density: 45.1M / mm² vs. 25.1M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1050 MHz vs. 1190 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1650 MHz vs. 1329 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) vs. 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective)
• Memory Size: 20 GB vs. 16 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 vs. HBM2
• Memory Bus Width: 320 bit vs. 4096 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 640.0 GB/s vs. 732.2 GB/s
• Shading Units: 7168 vs. 3584
• RT Cores: 56 vs. None
• Tensor Cores: 224 vs. None
• Pixel Rate: 158.4 GPixel/s vs. 127.6 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 369.6 GTexel/s vs. 297.7 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 23.65 TFLOPS vs. 9.526 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 23.65 TFLOPS (1:1) vs. 19.05 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 200 W vs. 250 W
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs. 600 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 vs. PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a vs. No outputs
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs. 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs. 1.3
• Release Date: 2021-11-22 vs. 2016-06-19
• Predecessor: Quadro Turing vs. Tesla Maxwell
• Successor: Workstation Ada vs. Tesla Volta