RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation vs Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile

#ad 
Buy
Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q Quadro RTX 5000 X2 Mobile
VS
RTX 2000 Ada Generation RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation RTX 4000 Ada Generation RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation RTX 4500 Ada Generation RTX 5000 Ada Generation RTX 5880 Ada Generation RTX 6000 Ada Generation

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile with RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

RTX 5000 Mobile
2019
16 GB GDDR6, 110 Watt
31.07

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation outperforms RTX 5000 Mobile by a considerable 46% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

RTX 5000 Mobile RTX 5000
RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking14657
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency22.4451.63
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameTU104AD104
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date27 May 2019 (5 years ago)21 March 2023 (1 year ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores30726144
Core clock speed1035 MHz720 MHz
Boost clock speed1545 MHz1560 MHz
Number of transistors13,600 million35,800 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)110 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate296.6299.5
Floating-point processing power9.492 TFLOPS19.17 TFLOPS
ROPs6480
TMUs192192
Tensor Cores384192
Ray Tracing Cores4848

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount16 GB20 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit160 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth448.0 GB/s280.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Ready+no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA7.58.9
DLSS++

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD132
−43.9%
190−200
+43.9%
1440p84
−42.9%
120−130
+42.9%
4K54
−38.9%
75−80
+38.9%

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 95−100
−42.9%
140−150
+42.9%
Counter-Strike 2 190−200
−45.8%
280−290
+45.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
−44.7%
110−120
+44.7%
Atomic Heart 95−100
−42.9%
140−150
+42.9%
Battlefield 5 165
−45.5%
240−250
+45.5%
Counter-Strike 2 190−200
−45.8%
280−290
+45.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
−44.7%
110−120
+44.7%
Far Cry 5 128
−40.6%
180−190
+40.6%
Fortnite 150−160
−40%
210−220
+40%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
−46.2%
190−200
+46.2%
Forza Horizon 5 100−110
−42.9%
150−160
+42.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
−41.8%
190−200
+41.8%
Valorant 200−210
−46.3%
300−310
+46.3%
Atomic Heart 95−100
−42.9%
140−150
+42.9%
Battlefield 5 162
−42%
230−240
+42%
Counter-Strike 2 190−200
−45.8%
280−290
+45.8%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
−44.4%
400−450
+44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
−44.7%
110−120
+44.7%
Dota 2 98
−42.9%
140−150
+42.9%
Far Cry 5 123
−46.3%
180−190
+46.3%
Fortnite 150−160
−40%
210−220
+40%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
−46.2%
190−200
+46.2%
Forza Horizon 5 100−110
−42.9%
150−160
+42.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 110−120
−39.1%
160−170
+39.1%
Metro Exodus 99
−41.4%
140−150
+41.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
−41.8%
190−200
+41.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 181
−43.6%
260−270
+43.6%
Valorant 200−210
−46.3%
300−310
+46.3%
Battlefield 5 152
−44.7%
220−230
+44.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
−44.7%
110−120
+44.7%
Dota 2 92
−41.3%
130−140
+41.3%
Far Cry 5 115
−39.1%
160−170
+39.1%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
−46.2%
190−200
+46.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
−41.8%
190−200
+41.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100
−40%
140−150
+40%
Valorant 181
−43.6%
260−270
+43.6%
Fortnite 150−160
−40%
210−220
+40%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
−44.6%
120−130
+44.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
−29.9%
300−310
+29.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
−43.9%
95−100
+43.9%
Metro Exodus 59
−44.1%
85−90
+44.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
−42.9%
250−260
+42.9%
Valorant 240−250
−45.8%
350−400
+45.8%
Battlefield 5 124
−45.2%
180−190
+45.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%
Far Cry 5 102
−37.3%
140−150
+37.3%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
−39.8%
130−140
+39.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
−39.3%
85−90
+39.3%
Fortnite 85−90
−39.5%
120−130
+39.5%
Atomic Heart 27−30
−29.6%
35−40
+29.6%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
−44.7%
55−60
+44.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
−44.9%
100−105
+44.9%
Metro Exodus 37
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 71
−40.8%
100−105
+40.8%
Valorant 200−210
−42.9%
290−300
+42.9%
Battlefield 5 73
−37%
100−105
+37%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
−44.7%
55−60
+44.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−41.2%
24−27
+41.2%
Dota 2 100−105
−40%
140−150
+40%
Far Cry 5 56
−42.9%
80−85
+42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−39.3%
85−90
+39.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−42.9%
60−65
+42.9%
Fortnite 40−45
−46.3%
60−65
+46.3%

This is how RTX 5000 Mobile and RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is 44% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is 43% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is 39% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 31.07 45.49
Recency 27 May 2019 21 March 2023
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 20 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 110 Watt 70 Watt

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has a 46.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 140% more advanced lithography process, and 57.1% lower power consumption.

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile
Quadro RTX 5000
NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

RTX 5000 Mobile Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile
vs
Pro Vega 64X Radeon Pro Vega 64X
RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
vs
Pro W6800 Radeon Pro W6800
RTX 5000 Mobile Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile
vs
RTX 4000 Mobile Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile
RTX 4080 Mobile NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile
vs
RTX 5000 Mobile RTX 5000 Mobile
P4200 Max-Q NVIDIA Quadro P4200 Max-Q
vs
RTX 5000 Mobile RTX 5000 Mobile
Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU
vs
RTX 5000 Mobile RTX 5000 Mobile
RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation NVIDIA RTX 4000 Mobile Ada Generation
vs
RTX 5000 Mobile RTX 5000 Mobile
RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation
vs
RTX 5000 Mobile RTX 5000 Mobile
GTX 1080 Mobile NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile
vs
RTX 4000 Mobile RTX 4000 Mobile
GTX 1070 Mobile NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile
vs
RTX 4000 Mobile RTX 4000 Mobile
M5000M NVIDIA Quadro M5000M
vs
RTX 4000 Mobile RTX 4000 Mobile
M4000M NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
vs
RTX 4000 Mobile RTX 4000 Mobile
M1000M NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
vs
RTX 4000 Mobile RTX 4000 Mobile

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.3
42 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4
53 votes

Rate RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile or RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.