AMD Instinct MI350X vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents two fundamentally different accelerators with almost no overlap in purpose. The AMD Instinct MI350X is a 1000 W OAM module aimed at massive compute workloads, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is a 70 W dual-slot workstation card with display outputs. The RTX 4000 SFF holds a 95th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database, while the MI350X sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmark scores. The MI350X cannot be recommended for any workload that requires graphics output, as it has no display outputs and no graphics API support. The RTX 4000 SFF, with its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, is the only option here for interactive graphics work. For raw FP32 compute density, the MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS versus 19.17 TFLOPS for the RTX 4000 SFF, a 3.76x advantage, but that compute comes in a module with 1000 W TDP and no PCIe power connectors of its own. Users with power constraints should note the RTX 4000 SFF requires only a 250 W suggested PSU, while the MI350X asks for 1400 W. The MI350X serves datacenter-scale AI and HPC workloads, while the RTX 4000 SFF serves workstation graphics, rendering, and smaller-scale compute tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different process nodes and foundries. The MI350X uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the RTX 4000 SFF uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The MI350X packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million transistors per mm². The RTX 4000 SFF has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a higher density of 121.8 million per mm². The MI350X die is roughly 8.1x larger in area and holds about 5.2x more transistors.

Architecture names reflect different design goals. The MI350X uses CDNA 4.0, a compute-focused architecture, while the RTX 4000 SFF uses Ada Lovelace, a graphics-oriented architecture. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and no ROPs, with a pixel rate listed at 0 MPixel/s. The RTX 4000 SFF has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The MI350X lists no RT cores or tensor cores in the data. Texture throughput favors the MI350X at 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s for the RTX 4000 SFF, a 7.5x gap.

Memory architecture differs completely. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 280.0 GB/s. The MI350X memory bandwidth is 29.25x higher. The MI350X memory clock is listed at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the RTX 4000 SFF runs 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective. The MI350X uses an OAM module form factor, while the RTX 4000 SFF is a dual-slot PCIe card. Bus interfaces differ as well: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI350X versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX 4000 SFF. The RTX 4000 SFF is listed as Active in production status and has a successor, Blackwell PRO W, while the MI350X lists no production status and no successor. Release dates place the RTX 4000 SFF in March 2023 and the MI350X in June 2025.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, which is 3.76x the 19.17 TFLOPS of the RTX 4000 SFF.

Q: Which card supports graphics output?

A: Only the RTX 4000 SFF. It has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X has no display outputs and lists N/A for all graphics APIs.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RTX 4000 SFF has a TDP of 70 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e, versus 20 GB of GDDR6 for the RTX 4000 SFF. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s for the MI350X versus 280.0 GB/s for the RTX 4000 SFF.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores for the MI350X?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the MI350X, and its average benchmark score is 0. The RTX 4000 SFF has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 124,812 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 109,364.

Q: How does the RTX 4000 SFF compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF has an average benchmark score of 117,088. It trails the NVIDIA GB10 by 0.3%, trails the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 by 1.6%, leads the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 2.4%, and leads the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 2.8%.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded specification.

• Process node: MI350X uses 3 nm; RTX 4000 SFF uses 5 nm. Both use TSMC.
• Transistors: MI350X has 185,000 million; RTX 4000 SFF has 35,800 million.
• Die size: MI350X is 2380 mm²; RTX 4000 SFF is 294 mm².
• Transistor density: MI350X has 77.7 million per mm²; RTX 4000 SFF has 121.8 million per mm².
• Base clock: MI350X runs 1000 MHz; RTX 4000 SFF runs 720 MHz.
• Boost clock: MI350X runs 2200 MHz; RTX 4000 SFF runs 1560 MHz.
• Memory size: 288 GB versus 20 GB.
• Memory type: HBM3e versus GDDR6.
• Memory bus: 8192-bit versus 160-bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus 280.0 GB/s.
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective versus 1750 MHz 14 Gbps effective.
• Shading units: 16,384 versus 6,144.
• TMUs: 1,024 versus 192.
• ROPs: 0 versus 64.
• RT cores: none listed versus 48.
• Tensor cores: none listed versus 192.
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 99.84 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 72.09 TFLOPS versus 19.17 TFLOPS.
• FP16: 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: 1000 W versus 70 W.
• Slot width: OAM Module versus Dual-slot.
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W versus 250 W.
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16.
• Display outputs: none versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.
• Graphics APIs: N/A versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4.
• Dimensions: MI350X is 102 mm long and 165 mm wide; RTX 4000 SFF is 168 mm long and 69 mm high.
• Release date: MI350X released June 2025; RTX 4000 SFF released March 2023.
• Predecessor: MI350X lists Radeon Instinct; RTX 4000 SFF lists Workstation Ampere.
• Successor: MI350X lists none; RTX 4000 SFF lists Blackwell PRO W.
• Production status: MI350X lists none; RTX 4000 SFF lists Active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two cards. The MI350X has no benchmarks at all, so no comparative test scores exist. The RTX 4000 SFF, however, has its own recorded results. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 124,812, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 109,364. Its average benchmark score of 117,088 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The MI350X sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of 0, meaning the database has no measured performance data for it.

In raw compute specifications, the MI350X dominates. Its FP32 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS is 3.76x the RTX 4000 SFF's 19.17 TFLOPS. Texture rate favors the MI350X by 7.5x. Memory bandwidth gives the MI350X a 29.25x advantage. The RTX 4000 SFF counters with a 99.84 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 0 for the MI350X, reflecting its graphics-oriented architecture. The RTX 4000 SFF also has 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores, while the MI350X lists none of these.

The RTX 4000 SFF's nearest rivals in the database show its competitive position. It trails the NVIDIA GB10 by only 0.3% and the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 by 1.6%, while leading the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 2.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 2.8%. These margins place the RTX 4000 SFF within a tight performance band around its peers. The MI350X has no nearest rivals listed in the database, reflecting its lack of benchmark data. Power draw tells the opposite story: the MI350X draws 1000 W versus 70 W for the RTX 4000 SFF, a 14.29x difference. The suggested PSU figures follow, with 1400 W for the MI350X and 250 W for the RTX 4000 SFF.

Both cards run FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning neither has a half-precision boost in the recorded data. The MI350X achieves 72.09 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, and the RTX 4000 SFF achieves 19.17 TFLOPS in both. Clock speeds favor the MI350X, with a 2200 MHz boost versus 1560 MHz for the RTX 4000 SFF. The MI350X also has a higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 720 MHz. Transistor density favors the RTX 4000 SFF at 121.8 million per mm² versus 77.7 million per mm², despite the MI350X's larger absolute transistor count.

The MI350X releases later, in June 2025, while the RTX 4000 SFF arrived in March 2023. The RTX 4000 SFF is already marked Active with a successor named, Blackwell PRO W. The MI350X lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct. For any workload requiring graphics, display output, or standard workstation APIs, the RTX 4000 SFF is the only functional choice. For massive memory capacity and compute throughput in a datacenter context, the MI350X holds every recorded performance specification advantage, though the absence of benchmark data limits direct validation. The recorded data shows two products engineered for separate markets, with the RTX 4000 SFF's benchmark-verified performance and the MI350X's specification-driven compute capability.