NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 135,218 on average, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 117,088. The full-size card leads by roughly 15.5% based on these averages.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 146,593, versus 124,812 for the SFF variant. That is a 17.5% advantage for the full-size card, the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark.

Q: Are both cards based on the same underlying chip?

A: Yes. Both use the AD104 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 121.8M per mm².

Q: What is the memory configuration on each card?

A: Both cards feature 20 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 160-bit bus. The full-size card runs at 18 Gbps effective with 360.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the SFF card runs at 14 Gbps effective with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How does the power draw differ between the two?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has a 130 W TDP and requires a 16-pin power connector, with a 300 W suggested PSU. The SFF version has a 70 W TDP, draws power entirely from the slot (no connectors), and suggests a 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The full-size RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 123,842 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 109,364 for the SFF card — a 13.2% lead for the former.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Ada Lovelace architecture using the AD104 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is identical at 35,800 million, and the die size matches at 294 mm². The core configuration is also the same: 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The differences lie entirely in clock speeds and power delivery. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation runs at a 1500 MHz base clock and 2175 MHz boost clock. The SFF variant is dramatically clocked down: 720 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost. This is a 780 MHz difference at base and a 615 MHz difference at boost. The memory clocks also differ — the full-size card uses 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the SFF card uses 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

The physical design diverges as well. The full-size card is a single-slot solution measuring 245 mm (9.6 inches) in length and 112 mm (4.4 inches) in height, with a 16-pin power connector. The SFF card is dual-slot, measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, with no power connector at all — it draws everything from the PCIe slot. Display outputs differ too: the full-size card has four standard DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the SFF card has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

The TDP difference is substantial: 130 W for the full-size card versus 70 W for the SFF card. This explains the clock disparity — the SFF card is constrained by its thermal envelope and slot-power limit. The suggested PSU also reflects this: 300 W for the full-size card, 250 W for the SFF card.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins in every benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 146,593 versus 124,812, a 17.5% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 123,842 versus 109,364, a 13.2% advantage. The full-size card holds a clear lead in both compute and graphics workloads.

The SFF Ada Generation's strengths are not in raw performance but in physical and power constraints. It fits in small-form-factor chassis with its 168 mm length and 69 mm height. It requires no auxiliary power connectors, which simplifies installation in tightly packed systems. Its 70 W TDP makes it suitable for systems with limited cooling or power budgets. The dual-slot design, while thicker, may actually aid cooling in constrained airflow environments.

For users with space and power headroom, the full-size card is strictly better in performance. For those building compact workstations where a 245 mm card cannot fit or where a 16-pin connector is unavailable, the SFF card is the only option that provides the same 20 GB memory capacity and core configuration.

Specification Differences

| Specification | RTX 4000 Ada Generation | RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |

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

| Base Clock | 1500 MHz | 720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2175 MHz | 1560 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 360.0 GB/s | 280.0 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 139.2 GPixel/s | 99.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 417.6 GTexel/s | 299.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 26.73 TFLOPS | 19.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1) | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 130 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

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

| Length | 245 mm (9.6 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2023-08-08 | 2023-03-20 |

Everything else — chip, architecture, process node, transistor count, die size, memory size, memory type, bus width, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, tensor cores, and API support — is identical between the two cards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent and significant performance gap. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 146,593 against 124,812 for the SFF card, yielding a 17.5% delta. This is the largest margin between the two. In Geekbench Vulkan, the scores are 123,842 and 109,364 respectively, a 13.2% gap.

These results align with the specification differences. The full-size card's boost clock is 615 MHz higher, and its memory bandwidth is 80 GB/s greater (360.0 GB/s versus 280.0 GB/s). The FP32 throughput difference is substantial: 26.73 TFLOPS versus 19.17 TFLOPS, a 39% advantage in theoretical compute. The texture rate also favors the full-size card at 417.6 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s, and the pixel rate is 139.2 GPixel/s versus 99.84 GPixel/s.

The SFF card's nearest rivals provide context for its position. Its average score of 117,088 puts it slightly behind the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393, delta -0.3%) and the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118,976, delta -1.6%). It beats the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395, delta 2.4%) and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944, delta 2.8%). The full-size card, meanwhile, sits at 135,218 average, essentially tied with the NVIDIA A10M (135,230, delta 0%) and slightly behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774, delta -0.4%), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472, delta -0.9%).

Both cards rank in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, indicating that even the slower SFF variant is a high-end performer in absolute terms.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation outperforms the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation in every measured benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a 17.5% lead in OpenCL and a 13.2% lead in Vulkan. The full-size card also holds a 15.5% advantage in average benchmark score (135,218 versus 117,088).

The reasons are clear from the specifications. The full-size card has a 615 MHz higher boost clock, 80 GB/s more memory bandwidth, 7.56 TFLOPS more FP32 compute, and nearly 40% higher texture and pixel rates. All of this comes at the cost of power: 130 W versus 70 W TDP, a 16-pin connector versus none, and a larger physical footprint.

The SFF card's purpose is not to compete on performance but to deliver the same core architecture and 20 GB memory capacity in a compact, low-power package. It is the correct choice when chassis space is limited to 168 mm in length, when no auxiliary power connector is available, or when the system's power budget cannot accommodate 130 W. Its 70 W TDP and slot-only power draw make it uniquely suited to small-form-factor workstations.

For anyone with the space and power headroom, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the better performer by every metric recorded. The SFF variant is a specialized solution for constrained environments, trading 13-17% performance for a 60 W reduction in power draw and a 77 mm reduction in length. The choice between them hinges entirely on physical and power constraints, not on benchmark results.