NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile Comparison

NVIDIA’s RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation and RTX A5500 Mobile are two workstation-class GPUs that sit very close in aggregate performance but diverge sharply in their underlying designs and intended usage. The data places the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation at an average benchmark score of 117,088, while the RTX A5500 Mobile trails at 113,944. Both occupy the 96th percentile of all GPUs, yet the head-to-head benchmark results reveal a consistent, if modest, edge for the SFF desktop part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison consists of two tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 124,812 against the RTX A5500 Mobile’s 124,287. This is a narrow win, with a deltaPct of 0.4%. The difference amounts to just 525 points, which is within run-to-run variance territory for most workloads. Still, the SFF Ada card takes the win, and the direction is consistent with the aggregate scores.

The more decisive gap appears in Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 109,364, while the RTX A5500 Mobile manages 103,601. That is a deltaPct of 5.6% in favor of the SFF part. Vulkan is a lower-level API that tends to expose raw compute throughput and scheduling efficiency, so this 5.6% lead suggests the Ada Lovelace architecture’s newer design pays off in that context. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2–0 record, while the RTX A5500 Mobile has zero wins.

Looking at the broader rival landscape, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation sits 2.8% above the RTX A5500 Mobile in average score, which aligns with the head-to-head deltas. The SFF part is also 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo and 6.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II. However, it trails the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 by 5.1%. The RTX A5500 Mobile, meanwhile, is 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo, 3.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II, and 6.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X. The proximity of these scores means neither GPU dominates its class; instead, small margins separate several competing workstation parts.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, though not overwhelming, preference for the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation when comparing these two directly. It wins both available benchmarks, holds a 2.8% lead in average score, and does so while consuming substantially less power—70 W versus 165 W for the RTX A5500 Mobile. For any workload where the Geekbench Vulkan result matters, the 5.6% advantage is meaningful. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation also offers more memory capacity at 20 GB versus 16 GB, which can matter for large datasets even if the memory bus is narrower.

The RTX A5500 Mobile is not without its merits. Its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is far higher than the 280.0 GB/s of the SFF part, and it has more shading units, texture mapping units, and raster operations pipelines. For applications that are bandwidth-bound or heavily rely on raw shader throughput, the A5500 Mobile’s specifications suggest it could perform better than the benchmark average implies. However, those theoretical advantages do not translate into a single benchmark win in the available data. The verdict is straightforward: the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the stronger choice based on measured performance, while the RTX A5500 Mobile remains a viable alternative only if its specific architectural traits—like higher memory bandwidth—are more important than the observed benchmark results.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different processes. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip based on Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. It integrates 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². In contrast, the RTX A5500 Mobile uses the GA103 chip based on Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. That chip contains 22,000 million transistors on a much larger 496 mm² die, giving a transistor density of just 44.4M per mm². The process advantage is stark: the Ada part packs over 2.7 times the transistor density, which explains how it achieves competitive performance with far fewer resources.

Clock speeds also differ. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has a base clock of 720 MHz and a boost clock of 1560 MHz. The RTX A5500 Mobile starts higher at 975 MHz base but boosts to a lower 1500 MHz. The effective memory clock is 14 Gbps for the SFF part versus 16 Gbps for the mobile part. The SFF Ada card’s memory is rated at 1750 MHz, while the A5500 Mobile’s memory runs at 2000 MHz.

Feature sets are similar in terms of API support: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16 interfaces. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RTX A5500 Mobile’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by the laptop implementation. The SFF part is a dual-slot card with physical dimensions of 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height; the mobile part has no listed dimensions, as it is designed for integration into laptops.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 117,088, which is 2.8% higher than the RTX A5500 Mobile’s 113,944.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 109,364 versus 103,601 for the RTX A5500 Mobile, giving the SFF part a 5.6% lead.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, providing 280.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A5500 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has a TDP of 70 W, while the RTX A5500 Mobile has a TDP of 165 W. The SFF part also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the mobile part has no such rating.

Q: Are both GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation and the RTX A5500 Mobile are in the 96th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is listed as “Active,” while the RTX A5500 Mobile is listed as “End-of-life.”

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins on measured performance. It takes both head-to-head benchmarks, leads by 2.8% in average score, and delivers a 5.6% advantage in Vulkan. It also wins on efficiency, with a 70 W TDP that is less than half the 165 W of the mobile part. Its 20 GB memory capacity is larger, which is an advantage for workloads that need to hold bigger working sets, even if the bandwidth is lower. The SFF part is also a desktop card with fixed dimensions and four mini-DisplayPort outputs, making it a straightforward drop-in for compact workstations. Its production status is active, meaning it is currently available.

The RTX A5500 Mobile wins on raw memory bandwidth, offering 512.0 GB/s versus 280.0 GB/s—an 82.9% advantage. It also has more computational resources: 7424 shading units versus 6144, 232 texture mapping units versus 192, 96 raster operations pipelines versus 64, 58 RT cores versus 48, and 232 tensor cores versus 192. Its FP32 throughput is 22.27 TFLOPS versus 19.17 TFLOPS for the SFF part, and its pixel rate is 144.0 GPixel/s versus 99.84 GPixel/s. These specifications suggest that for compute-heavy workloads that are not reflected in the two available benchmarks, the A5500 Mobile could be faster. Its higher base clock of 975 MHz also gives it an edge in lightly threaded tasks that boost less aggressively. The mobile form factor means it is designed for laptops, where power and space constraints differ from a desktop SFF card.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences are numerous. The process node differs: 5 nm for the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation versus 8 nm for the RTX A5500 Mobile. Transistor counts differ: 35,800 million versus 22,000 million. Die size is smaller for the SFF part at 294 mm² versus 496 mm². Transistor density is 121.8M per mm² versus 44.4M per mm². Clock speeds differ in both base (720 MHz vs 975 MHz) and boost (1560 MHz vs 1500 MHz). Memory size is 20 GB versus 16 GB. Memory bus width is 160-bit versus 256-bit. Memory bandwidth is 280.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. The memory clock is 1750 MHz versus 2000 MHz. Effective memory speed is 14 Gbps versus 16 Gbps.

Shading units number 6144 versus 7424. TMUs are 192 versus 232. ROPs are 64 versus 96. RT cores are 48 versus 58. Tensor cores are 192 versus 232. Pixel rate is 99.84 GPixel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 299.5 GTexel/s versus 348.0 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance is 19.17 TFLOPS versus 22.27 TFLOPS, both at 1:1 ratios. TDP is 70 W versus 165 W. Slot width is dual-slot for the SFF part, with no slot width listed for the mobile part. The SFF part has a length of 168 mm and height of 69 mm; the mobile part has no dimensions listed. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus “Portable Device Dependent.” Power connectors are “None” for both. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the SFF part, with none listed for the mobile part. Production status is “Active” versus “End-of-life.” Release dates are March 20, 2023, for the SFF part and March 21, 2022, for the mobile part. Predecessors are “Workstation Ampere” versus “Quadro Turing-M,” and successors are “Blackwell PRO W” versus “Ada-MW.”