Tesla P4 vs Qualcomm Adreno 690

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 690 with Tesla P4, including specs and performance data.

Qualcomm Adreno 690
2018
7 Watt
2.62

Tesla P4 outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 690 by a whopping 758% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking807243
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency26.7921.46
Architectureno dataPascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameno dataGP104
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date6 December 2018 (6 years ago)13 September 2016 (8 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 coresno data2560
Core clock speedno data886 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1114 MHz
Number of transistorsno data7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rateno data178.2
Floating-point processing powerno data5.704 TFLOPS
ROPsno data64
TMUsno data160

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data8 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1502 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data192.3 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
CUDA-6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Qualcomm Adreno 690 2.62
Tesla P4 22.49
+758%

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.

Qualcomm Adreno 690 1049
Tesla P4 8987
+757%

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 HD23
−726%
190−200
+726%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
−718%
90−95
+718%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
−718%
90−95
+718%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−746%
110−120
+746%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−750%
85−90
+750%
Valorant 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
−718%
90−95
+718%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Dota 2 14
−757%
120−130
+757%
Far Cry 5 16
−713%
130−140
+713%
Fortnite 14−16
−700%
120−130
+700%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−746%
110−120
+746%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−740%
210−220
+740%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−750%
85−90
+750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−750%
85−90
+750%
Valorant 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
World of Tanks 45−50
−716%
400−450
+716%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
−718%
90−95
+718%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Dota 2 35
−757%
300−310
+757%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−713%
130−140
+713%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−746%
110−120
+746%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−740%
210−220
+740%
Valorant 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
−742%
160−170
+742%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
World of Tanks 18−20
−733%
150−160
+733%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−733%
50−55
+733%
Valorant 9−10
−733%
75−80
+733%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−733%
75−80
+733%
Dota 2 16−18
−713%
130−140
+713%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−700%
120−130
+700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−713%
65−70
+713%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−700%
120−130
+700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−733%
75−80
+733%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Dota 2 16−18
−713%
130−140
+713%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Fortnite 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Valorant 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%

This is how Qualcomm Adreno 690 and Tesla P4 compete in popular games:

  • Tesla P4 is 726% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.62 22.49
Recency 6 December 2018 13 September 2016
Chip lithography 5 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 75 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 690 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 971.4% lower power consumption.

Tesla P4, on the other hand, has a 758.4% higher aggregate performance score.

The Tesla P4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 690 in performance tests.

Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 690 is a notebook card while Tesla P4 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Qualcomm Adreno 690
Adreno 690
NVIDIA Tesla P4
Tesla P4

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.5 11 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 690 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 73 votes

Rate Tesla P4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.