Tesla P4 vs Qualcomm Adreno 690
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 690 with Tesla P4, including specs and performance data.
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 ranking | 811 | 248 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 26.85 | 21.51 |
| Architecture | no data | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | no data | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 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 cores | no data | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 886 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1114 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 178.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.704 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 160 |
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).
| Interface | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 192.3 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 20
−750%
| 170−180
+750%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−733%
|
100−105
+733%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−757%
|
60−65
+757%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−757%
|
60−65
+757%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−733%
|
100−105
+733%
|
| 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 | 12−14
−733%
|
100−105
+733%
|
| 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 | 12−14
−733%
|
100−105
+733%
|
| 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
−733%
|
150−160
+733%
|
| 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 | 7−8
−757%
|
60−65
+757%
|
| 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
| 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%
|
| 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 | 3−4
−700%
|
24−27
+700%
|
This is how Qualcomm Adreno 690 and Tesla P4 compete in popular games:
- Tesla P4 is 750% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.63 | 22.57 |
| 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 758.2% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
