AMD Radeon Pro VII vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

# NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation vs AMD Radeon Pro VII

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation and AMD Radeon Pro VII represent two distinct approaches to workstation graphics, separated by three years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute benchmarks, but the Radeon Pro VII retains specific strengths in memory bandwidth and FP16 throughput that matter for certain workloads. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins both, with an average benchmark score of 117,088 compared to the Radeon Pro VII's 97,131 — a 20.5% gap in aggregate performance.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation dominates in the two benchmarks where both cards were tested. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 124,812 against the Radeon Pro VII's 90,148, a 38.5% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the lead narrows but remains substantial: 109,364 versus 92,862, for a 17.8% margin. These results indicate that the Ada generation card is the stronger choice for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads and for Vulkan-based rendering tasks.

The AMD Radeon Pro VII, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has its own domain of superiority: memory bandwidth. Its HBM2 memory subsystem delivers 1.02 TB/s across a 4096-bit bus, compared to the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation's 280.0 GB/s over a 160-bit bus. This 3.6x bandwidth advantage is not reflected in the Geekbench scores but would favor the Radeon in memory-bound scenarios such as large dataset manipulation or high-resolution texture streaming. The Radeon also offers higher FP16 throughput at 26.11 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus the NVIDIA card's 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1), making it potentially better suited for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic.

The Radeon Pro VII also wins on display connectivity with six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus four on the NVIDIA card. For multi-monitor workstation setups, this extra headroom could be decisive.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the AMD Radeon Pro VII uses the Vega 20 chip on a 7 nm process. The NVIDIA chip packs 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². The AMD chip has 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die, for a density of 40.0 million per mm². The Ada chip is nearly three times denser, reflecting the newer manufacturing node and more complex architecture.

The NVIDIA card employs the Ada Lovelace architecture with 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, 64 raster output units, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card uses the older GCN 5.1 architecture with 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but lacks dedicated RT or tensor cores. Its API support tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3.

Memory configurations differ fundamentally. The NVIDIA card uses 20 GB of GDDR6 with a 160-bit bus, while the AMD card uses 16 GB of HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus. The Radeon's memory clock runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), whereas the NVIDIA memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The effective bandwidth difference is stark: 1.02 TB/s for AMD versus 280.0 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Power and physical characteristics also diverge sharply. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has a 70 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the Radeon Pro VII has a 250 W TDP, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The NVIDIA card is a compact 168 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, versus the AMD card's 305 mm (12 inches) length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) height. The Radeon Pro VII is end-of-life with a release date of 2020-05-12, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation remains active, released on 2023-03-20.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the largest performance gap between these two cards. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 124,812, which is 38.5% higher than the Radeon Pro VII's 90,148. This is a substantial margin that places the NVIDIA card in a different performance tier for OpenCL compute. Looking at the nearest rival data, the Radeon Pro VII's OpenCL score sits near the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92,466) and below the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (101,872), while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation's OpenCL result exceeds all its listed rivals except the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118,976) and NVIDIA GB10 (117,393).

In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA card again wins, but by a smaller 17.8% margin: 109,364 versus 92,862. This narrower gap suggests that the Radeon Pro VII's architecture handles Vulkan workloads relatively better than OpenCL, possibly due to its higher texture rate (408.0 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (108.8 GPixel/s versus 99.84 GPixel/s). However, the NVIDIA card's overall compute advantage in FP32 (19.17 TFLOPS versus 13.06 TFLOPS) likely drives its Vulkan lead.

The Radeon Pro VII does have a Geekbench Metal score of 108,383, which the NVIDIA card cannot be compared against directly since it was not tested in that API. This Metal score is notably higher than its OpenCL and Vulkan scores, indicating that AMD's card performs better on Apple's graphics API than on cross-platform APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation delivers 19.17 TFLOPS FP32, which is 46.8% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro VII's 13.06 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD card have any performance advantage at all?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro VII has higher FP16 throughput at 26.11 TFLOPS (2:1) versus the NVIDIA card's 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1), and its memory bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s is over 3.6 times the NVIDIA card's 280.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA AD104 chip contains 35,800 million transistors, while the AMD Vega 20 chip contains 13,230 million transistors, a 2.7x difference in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has dedicated RT cores (48 of them). The AMD Radeon Pro VII has no RT core listing in its specifications.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The NVIDIA card's average score of 117,088 is 1.6% below the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118,976) and 0.3% below the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393), but 2.4% above the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395). The AMD card's average of 97,131 is 4.7% below the Quadro RTX 6000 (101,872) and 0.4% below the RX 7900M (97,487), but 5% above the Instinct MI60 (92,466).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The NVIDIA card has a 70 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the AMD card has a 250 W TDP requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors with a suggested 600 W PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation | AMD Radeon Pro VII |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | GCN 5.1 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 13,230 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 331 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.8M / mm² | 40.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 720 MHz | 1400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1560 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Memory Size | 20 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 280.0 GB/s | 1.02 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 192 | 240 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 48 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 192 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 99.84 GPixel/s | 108.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 299.5 GTexel/s | 408.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 19.17 TFLOPS | 13.06 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) | 26.11 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 70 W | 250 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 600 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions (L×H) | 168 mm × 69 mm | 305 mm × 111 mm |

| Release Date | 2023-03-20 | 2020-05-12 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 1,899 USD |

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro VII in every shared test. Its 38.5% OpenCL lead and 17.8% Vulkan lead, combined with a 95th percentile ranking versus 93rd for the AMD card, make it the superior choice for general compute and rendering workloads. The NVIDIA card also offers more memory (20 GB vs 16 GB), a much smaller physical footprint, lower power requirements (70 W vs 250 W TDP), and active production status.

The AMD Radeon Pro VII's case rests entirely on its memory bandwidth and FP16 throughput. For professionals working with massive datasets that exceed the NVIDIA card's 280.0 GB/s bandwidth, the 1.02 TB/s HBM2 subsystem could provide a tangible advantage in specific memory-bound tasks. Similarly, the 26.11 TFLOPS FP16 output may benefit machine learning inference or scientific computing that uses half precision. The Radeon's six display outputs also give it an edge for extremely large multi-monitor configurations.

However, the Radeon Pro VII is end-of-life, carries a 1,899 USD launch MSRP, and lacks RT and tensor cores that the NVIDIA card provides. Its nearest rival comparisons show it trailing the Quadro RTX 6000 by 4.7% and only marginally ahead of the Instinct MI60 at 5%. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, by contrast, sits within 1.6% of the Radeon PRO W7700 and just 0.3% below the GB10, placing it at the top of its performance class.

For most buyers, the data points decisively to the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation. It wins every benchmark, uses a fraction of the power, occupies far less space, and represents current-generation technology. The Radeon Pro VII should only be considered by users whose workloads specifically demand extreme memory bandwidth or higher FP16 throughput, and who can accommodate a 305 mm dual-slot card with a 250 W power draw. Even then, the lack of driver updates for an end-of-life product and the absence of RT hardware make it a difficult recommendation in 2023 and beyond.