Model Comparison

Adobe Firefly vs GPT-4o Image Generation

Adobe Firefly: HeavyGPT-4o Image Generation: Heavy

Side-by-side environmental impact comparison. GPT-4o Image Generation uses 41% more energy per query.

GPT-4o Image Generation uses 41% more energy than Adobe Firefly
4.5 Wh vs 3.2 Wh per query · 2.0 g vs 1.0 g CO · 16 mL vs 6 mL water
Adobe Firefly
Adobe
Energy per query3.2 Wh
CO per query1.0 g
Water per query6 mL
VS
GPT-4o Image Generation
OpenAI
Energy per query4.5 Wh
CO per query2.0 g
Water per query16 mL

Adobe Firefly

ProviderAdobe
CategoryImage Generation
Inference LocationAWS / Azure (Multi-cloud)
Confidenceestimated
Efficiency TierHeavy

GPT-4o Image Generation

ProviderOpenAI
CategoryImage Generation
Inference LocationAzure US East / Sweden
Confidenceestimated
Efficiency TierHeavy

Frequently Asked Questions

Which uses more energy, Adobe Firefly or GPT-4o Image Generation?

GPT-4o Image Generation uses 41% more energy per query than Adobe Firefly. Adobe Firefly uses 3.2 Wh per query, while GPT-4o Image Generation uses 4.5 Wh.

What is the carbon footprint difference between Adobe Firefly and GPT-4o Image Generation?

GPT-4o Image Generation uses 2.0x more CO₂ per query than Adobe Firefly. Adobe Firefly emits 1.0 g of CO₂ per query compared to GPT-4o Image Generation's 2.0 g.

Which is more environmentally friendly, Adobe Firefly or GPT-4o Image Generation?

Adobe Firefly is the more environmentally friendly option, using 3.2 Wh per query compared to GPT-4o Image Generation's 4.5 Wh. That makes GPT-4o Image Generation roughly 1.4x more energy-intensive.

Calculate your footprint with these models

See how your daily usage of Adobe Firefly and GPT-4o Image Generation adds up over time. Our calculator estimates energy, carbon, and water impact.

Calculate My Compute
View Adobe Firefly detailsView GPT-4o Image Generation details