Tesla T4 vs Radeon RX Vega M GL
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL with Tesla T4, including specs and performance data.
Tesla T4 outperforms RX Vega M GL by a whopping 175% 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 | 490 | 241 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.84 | 27.68 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 22 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 February 2018 (7 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 | 1280 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | 585 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | 1590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.88 | 254.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.588 TFLOPS | 8.141 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 80 | 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).
| Interface | IGP | 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 | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| 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
Medium Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
−163%
|
150−160
+163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−165%
|
90−95
+165%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−145%
|
350−400
+145%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−165%
|
180−190
+165%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−163%
|
150−160
+163%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−171%
|
95−100
+171%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−165%
|
90−95
+165%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−171%
|
65−70
+171%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−165%
|
180−190
+165%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−165%
|
90−95
+165%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−171%
|
65−70
+171%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
−163%
|
150−160
+163%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−175%
|
55−60
+175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−165%
|
90−95
+165%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.24 | 25.41 |
| Recency | 1 February 2018 | 13 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 70 Watt |
RX Vega M GL has 7.7% lower power consumption.
Tesla T4, on the other hand, has a 175% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M GL in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL 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.
