NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

The data in this comparison comes from two distinct GPU designs serving different purposes: the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti is a 2022 flagship consumer card built on Ampere, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is a 2023 compact workstation card built on Ada Lovelace. In the available head-to-head benchmarks, the RTX 3090 Ti wins both tests by substantial margins, yet the RTX 4000 SFF counters with vastly lower power draw and a much smaller physical footprint. The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story: the RTX 3090 Ti averages 131,938 across its tested workloads, while the RTX 4000 SFF averages 117,088 — a difference of roughly 12.7% in favor of the older, larger card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeForce RTX 3090 Ti dominates the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3090 Ti scores 174,441 against the RTX 4000 SFF's 124,812, a delta of 39.8%. This is not a marginal win; it is a decisive lead that reflects the RTX 3090 Ti's raw compute resources — 10,752 shading units versus 6,144, and 40.00 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 19.17 TFLOPS. The OpenCL test is compute-heavy, and the RTX 3090 Ti has more than double the shading units and over twice the FP32 rate, so the 39.8% gap aligns with the spec disparity.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RTX 3090 Ti posts 215,633, while the RTX 4000 SFF manages 109,364 — a 97.2% delta, meaning the RTX 3090 Ti nearly doubles the RTX 4000 SFF's score. Vulkan workloads often stress memory bandwidth and geometry throughput, and here the RTX 3090 Ti's 1.01 TB/s bandwidth versus 280.0 GB/s is a 3.6x advantage. The RTX 3090 Ti also has 336 texture mapping units versus 192, and 112 ROPs versus 64, giving it far more headroom for fill-rate-limited tasks. In both benchmarks, the RTX 3090 Ti wins outright, and the wins are not close.

Notably, the RTX 3090 Ti has a third benchmark result — 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 5,741 — that has no counterpart in the RTX 4000 SFF's data. This score places the RTX 3090 Ti in the 95th percentile among all GPUs, a ranking shared by the RTX 4000 SFF, but the RTX 4000 SFF's percentile is based on a smaller benchmark set. The RTX 3090 Ti's average benchmark score of 131,938 is also higher than the RTX 4000 SFF's 117,088, though the two cards sit in the same percentile tier.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce RTX 3090 Ti wins every benchmark where both cards are tested, and the margin is large in both cases. Its strengths lie in raw compute throughput: 40.00 TFLOPS FP32, 336 tensor cores, and 84 RT cores give it substantial headroom for parallel workloads, ray tracing, and AI inference. The 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus delivers 1.01 TB/s bandwidth, which is essential for high-resolution textures and large datasets. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5,741, while not directly comparable to the RTX 4000 SFF's results, suggests strong DirectX 12 performance in the 95th percentile.

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, despite losing both head-to-head tests, wins in categories that do not appear in benchmark scores. Its 70 W TDP is a fraction of the RTX 3090 Ti's 450 W — a 6.4x difference — making it suitable for systems with modest power budgets. The card requires no power connectors, draws power solely from the PCIe slot, and suggests a 250 W PSU, whereas the RTX 3090 Ti needs a 16-pin connector and an 850 W PSU. The physical size difference is stark: the RTX 4000 SFF is 168 mm long and dual-slot, while the RTX 3090 Ti is 336 mm long and triple-slot. For small-form-factor workstations or dense multi-GPU configurations, the RTX 4000 SFF is the only viable option.

The RTX 4000 SFF also has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, matching the RTX 3090 Ti's three DisplayPort 1.4a plus one HDMI 2.1 in terms of total display count, but in a more compact connector layout. Its 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus provides 280.0 GB/s bandwidth — lower than the RTX 3090 Ti, but still substantial for workstation tasks. The Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm TSMC process, achieves a transistor density of 121.8M per mm² versus 45.1M per mm² for the Ampere chip, indicating a more modern and efficient design.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on entirely different architectures and process nodes. The RTX 3090 Ti uses the GA102 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die. The RTX 4000 SFF uses the AD104 chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die. This is a remarkable density difference: the RTX 4000 SFF fits 26.7% more transistors into less than half the die area, resulting in a transistor density of 121.8M per mm² versus 45.1M per mm².

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The RTX 3090 Ti has 24 GB of GDDR6X with a 384-bit bus, achieving 1.01 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF has 20 GB of GDDR6 with a 160-bit bus, achieving 280.0 GB/s. The RTX 3090 Ti's memory clock is listed as 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective speed, while the RTX 4000 SFF's memory clock is 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed. The narrower bus on the RTX 4000 SFF is compensated by higher memory clock frequency, but the overall bandwidth is still 3.6x lower.

Compute resources differ substantially. The RTX 3090 Ti has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 84 RT cores, and 336 tensor cores. The RTX 4000 SFF has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. In every category, the RTX 3090 Ti has 75% to 80% more units, which explains its performance lead. The clock speeds tell a different story: the RTX 3090 Ti has a base clock of 1560 MHz and boost of 1860 MHz, while the RTX 4000 SFF has a base of 720 MHz and boost of 1560 MHz. The RTX 4000 SFF's lower clocks are a consequence of its 70 W power envelope, but its 5 nm process allows higher density and efficiency per watt.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both use PCIe 4.0 x16 interfaces. The RTX 3090 Ti was released on 2022-01-26 and is marked end-of-life, while the RTX 4000 SFF was released on 2023-03-20 and is still active. The RTX 3090 Ti's predecessor is GeForce 20 and its successor is GeForce 40, while the RTX 4000 SFF's predecessor is Workstation Ampere and its successor is Blackwell PRO W.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti is the performance winner, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the efficiency and form-factor winner. In every shared benchmark, the RTX 3090 Ti wins by a margin ranging from 39.8% to 97.2%. Its average benchmark score of 131,938 is 12.7% higher than the RTX 4000 SFF's 117,088. For users who need maximum compute throughput, high memory bandwidth, or large VRAM capacity, the RTX 3090 Ti is the choice — provided the system can accommodate its 450 W TDP, triple-slot width, 336 mm length, and 850 W PSU requirement.

The RTX 4000 SFF, however, is the only reasonable option for space-constrained or power-constrained environments. Its 70 W TDP, dual-slot width, 168 mm length, and 250 W PSU requirement make it suitable for small workstations, embedded systems, or multi-GPU arrays where the RTX 3090 Ti would be physically and thermally impractical. Its 20 GB of memory is still substantial, and its 5 nm process node with 121.8M transistors per mm² indicates a modern, efficient design. The RTX 4000 SFF's percentile rank of 95 matches the RTX 3090 Ti, despite the lower average score, because it competes in a different segment of the GPU market.

The nearest rivals for each card reinforce their distinct positioning. The RTX 3090 Ti's closest competitor is the NVIDIA L4 (delta 0.7%), followed by the RTX 4000 Ada Generation (delta -2.4%) and A10M (delta -2.4%). The RTX 4000 SFF's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GB10 (delta -0.3%), with the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (delta -1.6%) and Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (delta 2.4%) close behind. These rival sets indicate that the RTX 3090 Ti is compared against other high-performance compute cards, while the RTX 4000 SFF sits among mid-range workstation and mobile-class GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw performance in the shared benchmarks?

A: The GeForce RTX 3090 Ti wins both shared benchmarks. It scores 174,441 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 124,812 (39.8% higher) and 215,633 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 109,364 (97.2% higher).

Q: Does the RTX 4000 SFF have any performance advantage?

A: In the benchmark data provided, no. The RTX 4000 SFF wins zero head-to-head tests, and its average benchmark score of 117,088 is lower than the RTX 3090 Ti's 131,938.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF has a TDP of 70 W versus the RTX 3090 Ti's 450 W, a 6.4x difference. The RTX 4000 SFF requires no power connectors and suggests a 250 W PSU, while the RTX 3090 Ti needs a 16-pin connector and an 850 W PSU.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The RTX 3090 Ti has 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus with 1.01 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card is physically smaller?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF is 168 mm long and dual-slot, while the RTX 3090 Ti is 336 mm long and triple-slot. The RTX 4000 SFF also has a height of 69 mm versus 140 mm for the RTX 3090 Ti.

Q: Are both cards in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are in the 95th percentile among all GPUs, but the RTX 3090 Ti achieves this with a higher average benchmark score of 131,938 versus 117,088 for the RTX 4000 SFF.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti | NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.1M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1560 MHz | 720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1860 MHz | 1560 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 20 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.01 TB/s | 280.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10752 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 336 | 192 |

| ROPs | 112 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 84 | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | 336 | 192 |

| FP32 Performance | 40.00 TFLOPS | 19.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 40.00 TFLOPS (1:1) | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 450 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 850 W | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 336 mm | 168 mm |

| Height | 140 mm | 69 mm |

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