Tesla T4 vs GeForce GTX 780 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Ti with Tesla T4, including specs and performance data.
T4 outperforms 780 Ti by a small 5% 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 | 281 | 264 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.50 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.97 | 26.05 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | TU104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 November 2013 (12 years ago) | 13 September 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2880 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 875 MHz | 585 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 928 MHz | 1590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 222.7 | 254.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.345 TFLOPS | 8.141 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 240 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | 2.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 336 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (5.1) | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 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.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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:
| Full HD | 96
−4.2%
| 100−110
+4.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.28 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0.8%
|
130−140
−0.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 50−55
−1.9%
|
55−60
+1.9%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
−3.3%
|
95−100
+3.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0.8%
|
130−140
−0.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
−4.3%
|
120−130
+4.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
−3.3%
|
95−100
+3.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
−2.7%
|
75−80
+2.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+1.3%
|
160−170
−1.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
−3.3%
|
95−100
+3.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0.8%
|
130−140
−0.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
−2.8%
|
260−270
+2.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
−4.3%
|
120−130
+4.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
−3.3%
|
95−100
+3.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
−2.7%
|
75−80
+2.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 80−85
−1.2%
|
85−90
+1.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+2%
|
50−55
−2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
−2.9%
|
70−75
+2.9%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+1.3%
|
160−170
−1.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
−3.3%
|
95−100
+3.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
−3.3%
|
95−100
+3.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
−2.9%
|
70−75
+2.9%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+1.3%
|
160−170
−1.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
−4.3%
|
120−130
+4.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−2%
|
50−55
+2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
−3%
|
170−180
+3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+5%
|
40−45
−5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−3.4%
|
180−190
+3.4%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−0.5%
|
200−210
+0.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−3.8%
|
55−60
+3.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−1.7%
|
60−65
+1.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+5.7%
|
35−40
−5.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40−45
−7.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−3.7%
|
140−150
+3.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−3.9%
|
80−85
+3.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
This is how GTX 780 Ti and Tesla T4 compete in popular games:
- Tesla T4 is 4% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.64 | 23.68 |
| Recency | 7 November 2013 | 13 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 70 Watt |
Tesla T4 has a 4.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 780 Ti and Tesla T4.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780 Ti is a desktop 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.
