Tesla T4 vs Radeon R9 M365X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M365X with Tesla T4, including specs and performance data.
Tesla T4 outperforms R9 M365X by a whopping 618% 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 | 754 | 245 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 27.63 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Tropo | TU104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (10 years ago) | 13 September 2018 (6 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 | 640 | 2560 |
| Compute units | 10 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 585 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | 1590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 37.00 | 254.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.184 TFLOPS | 8.141 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 40 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 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 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| God of War | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−582%
|
75−80
+582%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
−600%
|
140−150
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−606%
|
120−130
+606%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| God of War | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−567%
|
100−105
+567%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−586%
|
350−400
+586%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−592%
|
450−500
+592%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−597%
|
230−240
+597%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−582%
|
75−80
+582%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
−600%
|
140−150
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−606%
|
120−130
+606%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| God of War | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−582%
|
75−80
+582%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−567%
|
100−105
+567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−582%
|
75−80
+582%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−586%
|
350−400
+586%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−597%
|
230−240
+597%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−582%
|
75−80
+582%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−606%
|
120−130
+606%
|
| God of War | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−567%
|
100−105
+567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−582%
|
75−80
+582%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−586%
|
350−400
+586%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 20−22
−600%
|
140−150
+600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−604%
|
190−200
+604%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−600%
|
210−220
+600%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−594%
|
250−260
+594%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| God of War | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−588%
|
110−120
+588%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−567%
|
120−130
+567%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−582%
|
75−80
+582%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| God of War | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.53 | 25.36 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 13 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
Tesla T4 has a 618.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M365X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M365X 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.
