Ideogram 4 vs Flux.2 Dev: Image gen face-off on RTX 5090
Detailed comparison with specific prompts and GPU benchmarks on a 5090.
A Reddit user (u/Producing_It) conducted a head-to-head comparison between Ideogram 4 and Flux.2 Dev on an RTX 5090 GPU, using five intricate JSON prompts. Prompts included a transparent glass Ford F-150, a Terminator T800 in a golf outfit, and a Steam Deck being melted by magma. Ideogram 4 was run at 48 steps in quality mode with Dual CFG set to 4 and CFG Override at 4, using the fp8 model variant. Flux.2 Dev used 20 steps with guidance conditioning at 3 and the NVFP4 model version, with Mistral Small 3.2 Q6_k for CLIP loading. Both models output 2K resolution images.
Performance varied significantly: Flux.2 Dev rendered each image in 1 minute 17 seconds to 2 minutes 34 seconds, while Ideogram 4 took between 2 minutes 21 seconds and 2 minutes 51 seconds under the same GPU conditions. The comparison highlights trade-offs in speed, prompt fidelity, and visual quality. For professionals using image generation for prototyping or concept art, these benchmarks offer concrete data to choose between the two models based on workflow priorities. The detailed settings (steps, CFG, quantization) provide a reproducible baseline for future tests.
- Ideogram 4 used 48 steps, Dual CFG 4, CFG Override 4, fp8 model; Flux.2 Dev used 20 steps, CFG 3, NVFP4 model.
- Flux.2 Dev was faster: 1m17s–2m34s vs Ideogram 4's 2m21s–2m51s per 2K image on an RTX 5090.
- Both models handled complex prompts (e.g., transparent glass vehicle, melting electronics) but with distinct visual outputs.
Why It Matters
Real-world benchmarks help professionals choose image gen models based on speed vs quality trade-offs.