GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla P4 and AMD Radeon RX 480 represent two very different 2016-era interpretations of GPU design, and the benchmark data underscores just how far apart their priorities are. While the Tesla P4 is a low-power compute accelerator with a focus on efficiency and density, the Radeon RX 480 is a mainstream consumer graphics card built for rasterization and gaming. The head-to-head results show a clear performance advantage for the AMD card, but the full picture requires examining the architecture, specifications, and intended use cases of each.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data includes two direct comparison points, and in both, the AMD Radeon RX 480 emerges victorious. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 480 scores 37,998 against the Tesla P4’s 34,947, a difference of 8% in AMD’s favor. This is a notable margin, but not a landslide; it suggests the Tesla P4’s compute capabilities are respectable, though not class-leading. The gap widens significantly in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the RX 480 posts 45,968 versus the Tesla P4’s 40,309, a 12.3% advantage. The RX 480’s stronger showing in Vulkan is telling, as that API is heavily used in both gaming and compute workloads, and it indicates that AMD’s architecture handles the lower-level overhead more efficiently.

Looking at the broader context, the Tesla P4’s average benchmark score across all tests is 37,628, while the RX 480’s average is 33,997. However, the head-to-head wins give the AMD card a 2–0 record. The discrepancy between the average scores and the head-to-head results is interesting, it suggests that the RX 480’s performance is more variable across different workloads, while the Tesla P4 is more consistent. The Tesla P4’s percentile ranking is 81st among all GPUs, compared to the RX 480’s 78th, which is a narrow gap. The nearest rivals for the Tesla P4 include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (avg score 37,648, a -0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (avg score 37,507, a +0.3% delta), placing it in a performance tier far above its 75W power envelope suggests. The RX 480, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (avg score 33,951, a +0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (avg score 34,133, a -0.4% delta), indicating it is a solid mid-range performer.

Architecture Differences

The architectural DNA of these two GPUs could hardly be more different. The Tesla P4 is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, using the GP104 chip fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9 million per square millimeter. The RX 480, on the other hand, uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving it a higher density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. This is a subtle but important difference: AMD’s design is more compact per transistor, though the Tesla P4 has more total transistors overall.

The compute resource allocation differs significantly. The Tesla P4 fields 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The RX 480 counters with 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, but only 32 ROPs. The ROP count is a striking difference, the Tesla P4 has exactly double the raster output capability. This suggests the Tesla P4 is designed to handle heavy fill-rate workloads, even in a compute context. The pixel rate confirms this: the Tesla P4 achieves 71.30 GPixel/s versus the RX 480’s 40.51 GPixel/s. Texture rate is closer, with the Tesla P4 at 178.2 GTexel/s and the RX 480 at 182.3 GTexel/s, indicating the AMD card has a slight edge in texture processing.

The biggest architectural divergence is in FP16 compute. The Tesla P4 delivers 89.12 GFLOPS of FP16 performance, which is a 1:64 ratio compared to its FP32 output of 5.704 TFLOPS. This is a deliberate crippling of half-precision performance, a common move in NVIDIA’s compute cards of that era to differentiate product tiers. The RX 480, by contrast, offers 5.834 TFLOPS of FP16, a full 1:1 ratio with its FP32 performance. For any workload leveraging half-precision math, the RX 480 is dramatically superior, it offers roughly 65 times the FP16 throughput. The FP32 figures themselves are nearly identical, with the RX 480’s 5.834 TFLOPS edging out the Tesla P4’s 5.704 TFLOPS by about 2.3%.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 480 wins decisively in the two benchmarks available, but the nature of those wins matters. In OpenCL, a general-purpose compute API, the RX 480’s 8% lead is respectable but not overwhelming. The Tesla P4’s lower clock speeds, 886 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost versus the RX 480’s 1120 MHz base and 1266 MHz boost, likely explain part of this gap. However, the Tesla P4’s higher ROP count and larger transistor budget suggest it is optimized for specific server-side compute tasks rather than general-purpose throughput.

The Vulkan result is more telling. The RX 480’s 12.3% advantage in this API points to superior driver overhead handling and a more efficient command processor for graphics-centric workloads. This is a clear win for gaming and real-time rendering scenarios. The RX 480 also has the advantage of being a full-fledged display card with outputs (1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the Tesla P4 has no display outputs at all. The Tesla P4 is not designed for interactive use; it is a compute accelerator meant for servers or embedded systems where video output is irrelevant.

Where the Tesla P4 wins is in efficiency and form factor. Its 75W TDP is exactly half of the RX 480’s 150W. It requires no power connectors, while the RX 480 needs a single 6-pin connector. The suggested PSU for the Tesla P4 is 250W, versus 450W for the RX 480. The Tesla P4 is also a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, while the RX 480 is a dual-slot card at 240 mm long, 95 mm tall, and 35 mm wide. For dense server deployments or small form factor systems, the Tesla P4 is the clear choice. Its transistor density is lower, but its thermal and power profile allows for far more cards per chassis.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every major specification. The process node is 16 nm for the Tesla P4 and 14 nm for the RX 480. Transistor counts are 7,200 million versus 5,700 million, with die sizes of 314 mm² and 232 mm² respectively. Clock speeds favor AMD: the RX 480 runs at 1120 MHz base and 1266 MHz boost, while the Tesla P4 is limited to 886 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. Memory is a mixed bag, both have 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the RX 480’s memory runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) yielding 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Tesla P4’s memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for 192.3 GB/s. The RX 480 has a 33% bandwidth advantage.

The compute unit counts tell a story of divergent priorities. The Tesla P4 has more shading units (2,560 vs 2,304), more TMUs (160 vs 144), and double the ROPs (64 vs 32). The RX 480 has higher pixel rate (40.51 GPixel/s vs 71.30 GPixel/s goes to NVIDIA), correction, the Tesla P4’s pixel rate is higher at 71.30 GPixel/s. Texture rate is nearly identical, with the RX 480 at 182.3 GTexel/s and the Tesla P4 at 178.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is close, with the RX 480 at 5.834 TFLOPS and the Tesla P4 at 5.704 TFLOPS. FP16 is the stark divider: the RX 480 offers 5.834 TFLOPS, while the Tesla P4 is capped at 89.12 GFLOPS. API support also differs: the Tesla P4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), and the Tesla P4 has Vulkan 1.4 support versus the RX 480’s Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 has a slight edge, delivering 5.834 TFLOPS compared to the NVIDIA Tesla P4’s 5.704 TFLOPS, a difference of about 2.3%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 480 offers significantly more bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s, while the Tesla P4 provides 192.3 GB/s. Both use 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the RX 480’s memory runs at 8 Gbps effective versus 6 Gbps effective for the Tesla P4.

Q: Why is the Tesla P4’s FP16 performance so low?

A: The Tesla P4’s FP16 throughput is 89.12 GFLOPS, which is a 1:64 ratio relative to its FP32 output. This is a deliberate design choice for the Tesla Pascal generation, likely to differentiate it from higher-tier compute cards. The RX 480, with a 1:1 ratio, offers 5.834 TFLOPS of FP16 performance.

Q: Which card is more suitable for a compact system?

A: The Tesla P4 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, with a 75W TDP and no power connectors. The RX 480 is a dual-slot card at 240 mm long, 95 mm tall, and 35 mm wide, requiring a 150W TDP and a 6-pin connector. The Tesla P4 is clearly built for space-constrained environments.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Tesla P4 has an average benchmark score of 37,628, while the RX 480 has an average of 33,997. However, in the head-to-head tests, the RX 480 wins both the OpenCL (37,998 vs 34,947) and Vulkan (45,968 vs 40,309) benchmarks.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The Tesla P4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The Tesla P4 also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the RX 480 supports Vulkan 1.3.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different audiences. The AMD Radeon RX 480 is the better choice for anyone needing a traditional graphics card with display outputs, gaming capability, and strong general-purpose compute. Its 8% lead in OpenCL and 12.3% lead in Vulkan over the Tesla P4 are substantial, and the 1:1 FP16 ratio makes it vastly more capable for half-precision workloads. Its higher memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s vs 192.3 GB/s) further cements its advantage in data-heavy rendering tasks. The RX 480’s launch MSRP was 229 USD, but this is a secondary consideration given its performance profile.

The NVIDIA Tesla P4 is the superior choice for specific embedded or server use cases where power and space are at a premium. Its 75W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors allow for high-density deployments that the RX 480 cannot match. The Tesla P4’s higher ROP count (64 vs 32) and pixel rate (71.30 GPixel/s vs 40.51 GPixel/s) suggest it is optimized for fill-rate intensive compute tasks, even if its raw FP32 throughput is marginally lower. Its average benchmark score of 37,628 is notably higher than the RX 480’s 33,997, indicating more consistent performance across a wider range of tests. For a system builder prioritizing efficiency and density over raw gaming performance, the Tesla P4 is the rational pick. For everything else, the RX 480 wins on pure benchmark performance and feature completeness.