Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs Tesla T4
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla T4 with Radeon Pro Vega 64X, including specs and performance data.
Pro Vega 64X outperforms Tesla T4 by a significant 26% 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 | 243 | 184 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.34 | 9.61 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 13 September 2018 (6 years ago) | 19 March 2019 (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 | 2560 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | 1468 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 254.4 | 375.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.141 TFLOPS | 12.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 160 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | 320 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | no data |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR6 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.125 |
| 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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.13 | 31.56 |
| Recency | 13 September 2018 | 19 March 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 250 Watt |
Tesla T4 has a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega 64X, on the other hand, has a 25.6% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 6 months.
The Radeon Pro Vega 64X is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla T4 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla T4 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 64X is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
