Tesla T4 vs GeForce GT 425M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 425M with Tesla T4, including specs and performance data.
T4 outperforms 425M by a whopping 1890% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1100 | 264 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.98 | 26.05 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 13 September 2018 (7 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 560 MHz | 585 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.960 | 254.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.215 TFLOPS | 8.141 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 2.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 320.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 11
−1809%
| 210−220
+1809%
|
| Full HD | 17
−1665%
| 300−350
+1665%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1757%
|
130−140
+1757%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1789%
|
170−180
+1789%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1870%
|
650−700
+1870%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−1864%
|
550−600
+1864%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1775%
|
300−310
+1775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1757%
|
130−140
+1757%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1789%
|
170−180
+1789%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1757%
|
130−140
+1757%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1870%
|
650−700
+1870%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1775%
|
300−310
+1775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1757%
|
130−140
+1757%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1789%
|
170−180
+1789%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1757%
|
130−140
+1757%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1870%
|
650−700
+1870%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1817%
|
230−240
+1817%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1829%
|
270−280
+1829%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
This is how GT 425M and Tesla T4 compete in popular games:
- Tesla T4 is 1809% faster in 900p
- Tesla T4 is 1665% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 23.68 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 13 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 70 Watt |
GT 425M has 204% lower power consumption.
Tesla T4, on the other hand, has a 1890% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 425M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 425M is a notebook graphics card while Tesla T4 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
