NVIDIA Quadro GP100 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation and the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 represent two distinct eras of professional GPU design. The data shows a clear generational shift, with the newer Ada Lovelace card delivering decisively superior compute performance while consuming a fraction of the power. This analysis explores the benchmark results, architectural differences, and use-case implications strictly from the provided data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is a decisive victory for the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation. It scored 124,812 points, while the Quadro GP100 managed 87,445 points. This translates to a delta of 42.7%, meaning the RTX 4000 SFF is over 40% faster in this compute-oriented workload.

This substantial margin is reflective of their respective positions in the performance hierarchy. The RTX 4000 SFF's average benchmark score of 117,088 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, significantly higher than the Quadro GP100's 93rd percentile. Looking at the nearest rivals for the RTX 4000 SFF, it sits just 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GB10 and 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7700, but it is 2.4% ahead of the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB and 2.8% ahead of the RTX A5500 Mobile. This indicates it is not just a generational leap over the GP100, but a highly competitive part within its own contemporary landscape.

The Quadro GP100, by contrast, is benchmarked much closer to modern mid-range cards. Its nearest rival data shows it is only 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and 2.1% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX. However, it trails the RTX A4500 Mobile by 4% and the RTX A4500 by 4.6%. This data paints a picture of a card that, while still capable, has been surpassed by subsequent generations, making the 42.7% gap to the RTX 4000 SFF a significant chasm in raw compute ability.

Architecture Differences

The performance disparity is rooted in fundamentally different architectures and process technologies. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is built on the AD104 chip using NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Quadro GP100 uses the GP100 chip on the older Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process. This process node difference alone is a major factor, allowing the Ada chip to pack 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². The Pascal chip, while physically larger at 610 mm², contains only 15,300 million transistors, yielding a density of just 25.1 million per mm². This represents a massive leap in integration efficiency.

The compute capabilities are structured very differently. The RTX 4000 SFF features 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It also includes dedicated hardware in the form of 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, making it a fully featured modern accelerator. The Quadro GP100 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but notably lacks dedicated RT and tensor cores. This absence means it cannot accelerate ray tracing or AI inferencing tasks in hardware, leaving such workloads to rely on the general-purpose shaders.

Clock speeds and memory technologies also tell a classic story of efficiency vs. brute force. The Quadro GP100 has a higher base clock of 1304 MHz, but its boost clock of 1443 MHz is lower than the RTX 4000 SFF's 1560 MHz boost. More importantly, the RTX 4000 SFF achieves a higher FP32 throughput of 19.17 TFLOPS compared to the GP100's 10.34 TFLOPS. The GP100 does have a higher pixel rate (138.5 GPixel/s vs 99.84 GPixel/s) and texture rate (323.2 GTexel/s vs 299.5 GTexel/s), but these are secondary metrics in many compute scenarios. The memory systems are a study in contrasts: the RTX 4000 SFF uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, yielding 280.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro GP100 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a massive 4096-bit bus, delivering a much higher 732.2 GB/s. This shows the older card was designed for bandwidth-intensive tasks, while the newer one relies on cache and architecture efficiency to achieve its performance.

The feature set also reflects the generational divide. The RTX 4000 SFF supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro GP100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. This means the newer card can take advantage of the latest graphics features, including hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders. The production status also differs, with the RTX 4000 SFF listed as "Active" and the Quadro GP100 as "End-of-life."

The Verdict

The data overwhelmingly favors the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation for any task relying on raw compute performance, as evidenced by the 42.7% lead in OpenCL. Its average benchmark score is significantly higher, and its percentile ranking is better. The RTX 4000 SFF also does this with a dramatically lower power draw of 70 W versus the Quadro GP100's 235 W, making it a far more efficient solution. For modern workloads that leverage RT and tensor cores, the RTX 4000 SFF is the only viable choice between the two, as the GP100 lacks this hardware entirely. The Quadro GP100's only advantages in the data are its higher memory bandwidth (732.2 GB/s) and its higher pixel/texture fill rates, which could theoretically be beneficial in specific, narrow legacy scenarios. However, for the vast majority of professional applications, the data indicates that the RTX 4000 SFF is the superior and more future-proof option.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation than the Quadro GP100 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF scored 124,812 points compared to the Quadro GP100's 87,445, representing a 42.7% performance advantage.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 732.2 GB/s, compared to the RTX 4000 SFF's 280.0 GB/s, due to its use of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus.

Q: Does the Quadro GP100 support hardware ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The Quadro GP100 architecture data does not list any RT cores or tensor cores, making it incapable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing or AI inferencing. The RTX 4000 SFF features 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two cards?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF has a TDP of 70 W, while the Quadro GP100 has a TDP of 235 W, making the newer card substantially more power-efficient.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF has an average benchmark score of 117,088 and sits in the 95th percentile, while the Quadro GP100 has an average score of 87,445 and is in the 93rd percentile.

Q: Which card is more modern in terms of API support?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro GP100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation: The RTX 4000 SFF is the clear winner in general compute performance, as demonstrated by its 42.7% lead in OpenCL benchmarks. It is also the only card here suitable for modern graphics workloads that use DirectX 12 Ultimate features or require hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration via its 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. Its lower 70 W TDP and compact dimensions (168 mm length) make it ideal for space-constrained and power-sensitive environments, such as small form factor workstations. The data shows it is the more capable and future-proof option for nearly all professional applications.

NVIDIA Quadro GP100: The Quadro GP100's advantages are specific to memory bandwidth and fill-rate-bound tasks. Its 732.2 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly triple that of the RTX 4000 SFF, could be a deciding factor in workflows that stream massive datasets that cannot fit in cache. Its higher pixel rate (138.5 GPixel/s) and texture rate (323.2 GTexel/s) also suggest it may hold a niche edge in certain rasterization-heavy legacy workloads. However, these wins are narrow and come at the cost of significantly higher power consumption and an older feature set.

Specification Differences

This section highlights the key specification fields where the two GPUs differ.

• Architecture: Ada Lovelace (AD104) vs. Pascal (GP100)
• Process Node: 5 nm vs. 16 nm
• Transistors: 35,800 million vs. 15,300 million
• Die Size: 294 mm² vs. 610 mm²
• Transistor Density: 121.8M / mm² vs. 25.1M / mm²
• Base Clock: 720 MHz vs. 1304 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1560 MHz vs. 1443 MHz
• Memory Size: 20 GB GDDR6 vs. 16 GB HBM2
• Memory Bus Width: 160 bit vs. 4096 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 280.0 GB/s vs. 732.2 GB/s
• Shading Units: 6144 vs. 3584
• TMUs: 192 vs. 224
• ROPs: 64 vs. 96
• RT Cores: 48 vs. None
• Tensor Cores: 192 vs. None
• Pixel Rate: 99.84 GPixel/s vs. 138.5 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 299.5 GTexel/s vs. 323.2 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 19.17 TFLOPS vs. 10.34 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) vs. 20.69 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 70 W vs. 235 W
• Power Connectors: None vs. 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs. 550 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 vs. PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a vs. 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs. 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs. 1.3
• Dimensions (LxH): 168 mm x 69 mm vs. 267 mm x 111 mm
• Production Status: Active vs. End-of-life
• Release Date: 2023-03-20 vs. 2016-09-30