NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 vs NVIDIA Tesla T4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database pits these two NVIDIA parts against each other in two recorded compute workloads, and the GeForce RTX 4080 dominates both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4080 scores 214,739 against the Tesla T4’s 61,276. That is a 71.5% margin in favor of the newer card, translating to roughly 3.5 times the raw score. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: 263,779 for the RTX 4080 versus 72,190 for the Tesla T4, a 72.6% gap. The Tesla T4 records zero wins in the head-to-head matrix; the RTX 4080 takes both.

These deltas are not close. The RTX 4080’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests lands at 54,247, while the Tesla T4 averages 66,733. The reversal here is notable: the T4’s average is pulled up by a narrower set of tests (only two), whereas the RTX 4080’s average includes ten tests spanning DirectX 9 through 12, 2D, 3D, and compute workloads. In the database’s percentile ranking against all GPUs, the Tesla T4 sits at the 90th percentile, while the RTX 4080 sits at the 86th. That seeming paradox is explained by the T4’s specialized compute profile and its position among accelerators, not by raw gaming or general-purpose performance.

Look at the RTX 4080’s individual test results to see its breadth. Passmark G3D scores 34,457, while the GPU compute test scores 20,671. DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 scores are 314 and 370 respectively, with DirectX 12 at 132 and DirectX 10 at 204. The 2D score of 1,239 is modest but present. The Tesla T4 has no equivalent DirectX or Passmark entries in the database, so direct comparisons there are impossible. What the data shows is that the RTX 4080 is a general-purpose rendering and compute card, while the T4 is a narrow, inference-oriented accelerator.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational and physical. The Tesla T4 uses the TU104 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, with 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die. The transistor density is 25.0 million per mm². The GeForce RTX 4080 uses the AD103 chip on a 5 nm TSMC process, packing 45,900 million transistors into a much smaller 379 mm² die, yielding a density of 121.1 million per mm². That is nearly a five-fold density improvement, and it explains how the RTX 4080 delivers far more compute in less silicon area.

Core counts differ massively. The T4 has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RTX 4080 has 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. Ray tracing cores: 40 on the T4 versus 76 on the RTX 4080. Tensor cores: 320 on the T4 versus 304 on the RTX 4080. The T4’s tensor core count is higher, but the architecture is older (Turing) versus Ada Lovelace on the RTX 4080. Clock speeds tell the rest of the story: the T4’s base clock is 585 MHz with a 1590 MHz boost, while the RTX 4080 runs at 2205 MHz base and 2505 MHz boost. The RTX 4080’s boost clock alone is over a gigahertz higher than the T4’s base.

Memory configurations share the same capacity and bus width: 16 GB and 256 bit. But the type and bandwidth diverge sharply. The T4 uses GDDR6 at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) for 320.0 GB/s. The RTX 4080 uses GDDR6X at 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective) for 716.8 GB/s, more than double the bandwidth. Pixel rate and texture rate follow suit: the T4 manages 101.8 GPixel/s and 254.4 GTexel/s, while the RTX 4080 achieves 280.6 GPixel/s and 761.5 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput is where the T4’s design philosophy shows. The T4’s FP32 is 8.141 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is 16.28 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The RTX 4080’s FP32 is 48.74 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is 48.74 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The RTX 4080 is 6 times faster in FP32 and 3 times faster in FP16, but the T4’s 2:1 FP16 ratio indicates an intentional focus on half-precision inference workloads, where the older card still holds a niche.

Power and physical design differ as much as the silicon. The T4 is a 70 W single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Its length is 168 mm (6.6 inches). The RTX 4080 is a 320 W triple-slot card with a single 16-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 700 W. Its length is 310 mm (12.2 inches), height 140 mm (5.5 inches), and width 61 mm (2.4 inches). The T4 has no display outputs, while the RTX 4080 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 on the T4 versus PCIe 4.0 x16 on the RTX 4080.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Tesla T4 averages 66,733 across its two recorded tests, while the RTX 4080 averages 54,247 across ten tests. The T4’s higher average reflects its narrow, compute-focused benchmark set.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare to the Tesla T4 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 4080 scores 214,739 against the T4’s 61,276, a delta of 71.5% in favor of the RTX 4080.

Q: Which card has more tensor cores?

A: The Tesla T4 has 320 tensor cores, while the RTX 4080 has 304. However, the RTX 4080’s tensor cores are from a newer Ada Lovelace architecture.

Q: Are the memory capacities the same?

A: Yes, both cards have 16 GB of VRAM and a 256 bit memory bus. The difference is in type and bandwidth: the T4 uses GDDR6 at 320.0 GB/s, while the RTX 4080 uses GDDR6X at 716.8 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Tesla T4 has a 70 W TDP with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The RTX 4080 has a 320 W TDP, requires a 16-pin connector, and suggests a 700 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports display outputs?

A: Only the RTX 4080 has display outputs, offering 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Tesla T4 has no outputs, indicating a server or accelerator role.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct use cases. The RTX 4080 is the clear choice for any workload that involves rendering, gaming, or general-purpose GPU compute. Its FP32 throughput of 48.74 TFLOPS is 6 times the T4’s 8.141 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 761.5 GTexel/s is 3 times the T4’s 254.4 GTexel/s. The RTX 4080 also has the advantage of higher clock speeds, more shading units, and double the memory bandwidth. For any user needing a display output, the RTX 4080 is the only option.

The Tesla T4 remains relevant only in specific inference scenarios. Its 320 tensor cores and 2:1 FP16 ratio (16.28 TFLOPS) suggest a design tuned for half-precision neural network inference, and its 70 W power draw with no external connectors makes it deployable in dense server configurations where the RTX 4080’s 320 W and triple-slot footprint would be prohibitive. The T4’s 90th percentile ranking versus the RTX 4080’s 86th percentile reflects this specialization: the T4 competes well among accelerators in its class, as shown by its rivals (AMD Radeon VII at 1.1% delta, NVIDIA Tesla P40 at 2.5% delta), while the RTX 4080 trades blows with cards like the RTX 4080 SUPER (0.1% delta) and AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (negative 1.1% delta).

For a workstation or gaming rig, the RTX 4080 wins outright on every recorded benchmark. For a power-constrained inference server, the T4’s lower power envelope and tensor core count may justify its existence, but the RTX 4080’s raw compute advantage is overwhelming. The database shows two wins for the RTX 4080, zero for the T4, and no scenario in the recorded data where the T4 outperforms the newer card.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla T4 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 |

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

| Architecture | Turing | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,600 million | 45,900 million |

| Die Size | 545 mm² | 379 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 121.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 585 MHz | 2205 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1590 MHz | 2505 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 320.0 GB/s | 716.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 9728 |

| TMUs | 160 | 304 |

| ROPs | 64 | 112 |

| RT Cores | 40 | 76 |

| Tensor Cores | 320 | 304 |

| Pixel Rate | 101.8 GPixel/s | 280.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 254.4 GTexel/s | 761.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.141 TFLOPS | 48.74 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 16.28 TFLOPS (2:1) | 48.74 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 70 W | 320 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Triple-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 700 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 310 mm (12.2 inches) |

| Height | Not recorded | 140 mm (5.5 inches) |

| Width | Not recorded | 61 mm (2.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2018-09-12 | 2022-09-19 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 1,199 USD |