L40S vs RTX A2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared RTX A2000 and L40S, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
L40S outperforms RTX A2000 by a substantial 39% 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 | 155 | 71 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 92.84 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 34.40 | 11.17 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GA106 | AD102 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 10 August 2021 (3 years ago) | 13 October 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 3328 | 18176 |
| Core clock speed | 562 MHz | 1110 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 2520 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,000 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 124.8 | 1,431 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.987 TFLOPS | 91.61 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 192 |
| TMUs | 104 | 568 |
| Tensor Cores | 104 | 568 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 26 | 142 |
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 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 167 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 864.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 8.6 | 8.9 |
| 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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- GeekBench 5 OpenCL
- GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 91
−31.9%
| 120−130
+31.9%
|
| 1440p | 43
−27.9%
| 55−60
+27.9%
|
| 4K | 28
−25%
| 35−40
+25%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.93 | no data |
| 1440p | 10.44 | no data |
| 4K | 16.04 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
−38.3%
|
260−270
+38.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−35.1%
|
100−105
+35.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
−35.1%
|
100−105
+35.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−34.5%
|
160−170
+34.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
−38.3%
|
260−270
+38.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−35.1%
|
100−105
+35.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 108
−38.9%
|
150−160
+38.9%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
−36.1%
|
200−210
+36.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
−32.8%
|
170−180
+32.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 121
−32.2%
|
160−170
+32.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
−35.1%
|
100−105
+35.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
−37.4%
|
180−190
+37.4%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
−38.6%
|
280−290
+38.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−34.5%
|
160−170
+34.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
−38.3%
|
260−270
+38.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
−26.8%
|
350−400
+26.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−35.1%
|
100−105
+35.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
−32.7%
|
130−140
+32.7%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
−36.1%
|
200−210
+36.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
−32.8%
|
170−180
+32.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 106
−32.1%
|
140−150
+32.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 129
−31.8%
|
170−180
+31.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
−35.1%
|
100−105
+35.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
−33.3%
|
80−85
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
−37.4%
|
180−190
+37.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 117
−36.8%
|
160−170
+36.8%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
−38.6%
|
280−290
+38.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−34.5%
|
160−170
+34.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−35.1%
|
100−105
+35.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
−31.9%
|
120−130
+31.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
−32.8%
|
170−180
+32.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
−35.1%
|
100−105
+35.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
−37.4%
|
180−190
+37.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
−32.8%
|
85−90
+32.8%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
−38.6%
|
280−290
+38.6%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
−36.1%
|
200−210
+36.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
−37.5%
|
110−120
+37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
−32.2%
|
300−310
+32.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 58
−37.9%
|
80−85
+37.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
−32.4%
|
45−50
+32.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−37.1%
|
240−250
+37.1%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
−26.6%
|
300−310
+26.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
−37.9%
|
120−130
+37.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−38.9%
|
50−55
+38.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
−31.1%
|
80−85
+31.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
−33.3%
|
120−130
+33.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
−38.3%
|
65−70
+38.3%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
−31%
|
110−120
+31%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−35.1%
|
50−55
+35.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
−33.9%
|
75−80
+33.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
−35%
|
27−30
+35%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
−37.5%
|
55−60
+37.5%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−35.7%
|
270−280
+35.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−37.3%
|
70−75
+37.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−35.1%
|
50−55
+35.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−33.3%
|
80−85
+33.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−37.5%
|
55−60
+37.5%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−37.5%
|
55−60
+37.5%
|
This is how RTX A2000 and L40S compete in popular games:
- L40S is 32% faster in 1080p
- L40S is 28% faster in 1440p
- L40S is 25% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.37 | 42.26 |
| Recency | 10 August 2021 | 13 October 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 300 Watt |
RTX A2000 has 328.6% lower power consumption.
L40S, on the other hand, has a 39.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 60% more advanced lithography process.
The L40S is our recommended choice as it beats the RTX A2000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
