NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 is the clear performance leader in this comparison, decisively outperforming the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation in every benchmark recorded. The data shows a stark contrast in raw compute capability, with the A5500 leveraging its larger Ampere architecture to deliver substantially higher scores, while the RTX 4000 SFF counters with superior power efficiency and a more compact physical footprint.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results leave no ambiguity about the performance hierarchy between these two workstation GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 posts a score of 174,637, which is 39.9% higher than the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation's 124,812. This is not a marginal difference; it represents a significant gap in compute throughput that will translate directly into faster rendering times and smoother viewport performance in GPU-accelerated applications.

The Vulkan results tell an even more pronounced story. The RTX A5500 achieves 155,797 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the RTX 4000 SFF manages 109,364. The delta here expands to 42.5% in favor of the A5500, indicating that the performance advantage is consistent across different graphics APIs and workload types. This consistency suggests that the A5500's architectural advantages are fundamental rather than workload-specific.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the RTX A5500's average benchmark score of 165,217 places it at the 97th percentile of all GPUs. It sits just 0.5% behind the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894), while maintaining a 1.7% lead over the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504). These are tight margins at the top of the performance spectrum.

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, with an average score of 117,088, still holds a respectable 95th percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GB10 at 117,393 (a 0.3% deficit) and the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 at 118,976 (1.6% behind). Notably, it leads the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 2.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 2.8%, but these are older or lower-power parts that don't compete in the same performance tier as the desktop A5500.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 has an average benchmark score of 165,217, which is significantly higher than the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation's 117,088.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The RTX A5500 scores 174,637 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 39.9% higher than the RTX 4000 SFF's 124,812.

Q: Does the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation win any benchmark against the RTX A5500?

A: No. The data records 2 wins for the RTX A5500 and 0 wins for the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation across all head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between these two GPUs?

A: The RTX A5500 ranks in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation ranks in the 95th percentile.

Q: How does the RTX 4000 SFF compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GB10?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF scores 117,088, which is 0.3% lower than the NVIDIA GB10's average score of 117,393.

Q: What is the memory size difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX A5500 features 24 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent entirely different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The RTX A5500 is built on the Ampere architecture (chip GA102), manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process node. This is a large, power-hungry design with 28,300 million transistors spread across a 628 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm². The RTX 4000 SFF, in contrast, uses the newer Ada Lovelace architecture (chip AD104) on TSMC's 5 nm process. It packs 35,800 million transistors into a much smaller 294 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm² — nearly 2.7 times denser than the Ampere part.

These architectural differences manifest in core configurations. The RTX A5500 fields 10,240 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, alongside 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores. The RTX 4000 SFF, despite its newer architecture, has fewer resources: 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The A5500's larger core count is a direct result of its bigger die and higher power budget.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The RTX A5500 runs at a base clock of 1080 MHz and boosts to 1665 MHz, while the RTX 4000 SFF has a lower base of 720 MHz but boosts to 1560 MHz. Despite the newer process node, the SFF card's reduced power envelope forces lower operating frequencies. The A5500's higher clocks and wider core configuration combine to produce a peak FP32 throughput of 34.10 TFLOPS, compared to 19.17 TFLOPS for the RTX 4000 SFF. Both cards support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning the FP16 performance matches their FP32 figures.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal fundamental design philosophy differences. The RTX A5500 uses a 384-bit memory bus with 24 GB of GDDR6 memory running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), delivering 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF makes do with a 160-bit bus and 20 GB of GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), yielding just 280.0 GB/s — less than half the bandwidth of the A5500.

Power consumption is where the RTX 4000 SFF asserts its advantage. The A5500 carries a 230 W TDP and requires a single 8-pin power connector with a suggested 550 W power supply. The RTX 4000 SFF sips just 70 W, needs no external power connectors, and works with a 250 W power supply. This 160 W difference is substantial for system builders and IT departments managing power budgets across multiple workstations.

Physical dimensions also separate these cards. The A5500 measures 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height, making it a full-size dual-slot workstation card. The RTX 4000 SFF is dramatically smaller at 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, living up to its "SFF" (small form factor) designation. Both use dual-slot cooling, but the A5500's larger footprint accommodates its higher thermal output.

Other differences include display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the A5500 versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the SFF card), production status (the A5500 is end-of-life while the SFF is active), and release timing (the A5500 launched on March 21, 2022, exactly one year before the RTX 4000 SFF on March 20, 2023). Both cards share the same PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs depends entirely on your priorities. If raw performance is the primary concern, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 is the unequivocal winner. It delivers 39.9% higher OpenCL scores and 42.5% higher Vulkan scores than the RTX 4000 SFF, with a 48,129-point advantage in average benchmark score. Its 768.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, 34.10 TFLOPS FP32 compute, and 24 GB VRAM make it the superior choice for compute-heavy workloads, large scene rendering, and multi-GPU configurations where performance scales directly with per-card throughput.

However, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is not without its merits. Its 70 W TDP (versus 230 W) and absence of external power connectors make it exceptionally easy to deploy in space-constrained or power-sensitive environments. The 5 nm TSMC process and Ada Lovelace architecture deliver modern features and efficiency that the older Ampere design cannot match. For users with small form factor chassis, limited power budgets, or applications that don't require the A5500's extreme compute density, the RTX 4000 SFF is a compelling and much more manageable option.

The data shows that the A5500's performance leadership is absolute in benchmarks, but the SFF card's efficiency and form factor advantages are equally clear in the specifications. A workstation that needs maximum compute in a standard chassis should choose the A5500; a compact system with modest cooling should choose the RTX 4000 SFF.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA RTX A5500 wins in every measured performance category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 174,637 and Vulkan score of 155,797 both exceed the RTX 4000 SFF's corresponding results by roughly 40%. It offers more memory (24 GB vs 20 GB), more than double the memory bandwidth (768.0 GB/s vs 280.0 GB/s), and nearly double the FP32 compute (34.10 TFLOPS vs 19.17 TFLOPS). Its 97th percentile ranking versus the SFF's 95th reflects this higher tier of performance. Use the A5500 for GPU rendering, simulation, machine learning training, or any workload where compute throughput and memory bandwidth directly impact productivity.

NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins on power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 70 W TDP is less than one-third of the A5500's 230 W, and it requires no external power connectors — a significant advantage for dense workstation deployments or systems with limited PSU headroom. Its dimensions (168 mm x 69 mm) are dramatically smaller than the A5500's (267 mm x 112 mm), enabling installation in small form factor cases. The SFF card's 95th percentile ranking still places it in the upper echelon of GPUs, and its 19.17 TFLOPS FP32 performance is substantial for a 70 W part. Choose the RTX 4000 SFF for compact workstations, power-sensitive environments, or applications where the A5500's extra performance wouldn't be fully utilized.