AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Comparison

The Verdict

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI300A and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070. The MI300A has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of zero, and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. The RTX 4070, by contrast, has ten recorded benchmark results, an average score of 37,648, and sits at the 81st percentile. The data therefore cannot support a performance comparison between the two, and any purchase decision would have to rely on the architectural and specification differences documented below.

The MI300A is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, and a 750 W thermal design power. The RTX 4070 is a consumer graphics card with full API support, display outputs, and a 200 W thermal design power. These are not competing products in the same market segment. The MI300A targets server-scale compute workloads, while the RTX 4070 targets desktop graphics and gaming. Neither product's data suggests it should be chosen over the other for the other's intended use case.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, produced on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 uses the AD104 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture, also produced on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but with 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The MI300A integrates roughly four times the transistor count on a die more than three times the size.

The MI300A uses HBM3 memory totaling 128 GB across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4070 uses 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 504.2 GB/s. That is a 10.5-fold difference in memory capacity and roughly a 10.5-fold difference in memory bandwidth, reflecting the MI300A's role as a data-center accelerator where memory throughput is critical.

The MI300A has 14,592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units, but zero raster operation units and a pixel rate of zero. It has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The RTX 4070 has 5,888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation units, 46 ray tracing cores, and 184 tensor cores. The MI300A's FP32 throughput is 61.29 TFLOPS, more than double the RTX 4070's 29.15 TFLOPS. The RTX 4070 lists FP16 at 29.15 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the MI300A does not list an FP16 figure.

The MI300A has no power connectors as an OAM module, no display outputs, no API support, and no listed dimensions. The RTX 4070 is a dual-slot card with a 16-pin connector, one HDMI 2.1 output, three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The MI300A uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface while the RTX 4070 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300A's memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the RTX 4070's memory clock is 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective.

The MI300A was released on December 5, 2023, with no launch MSRP recorded. The RTX 4070 was released on April 11, 2023, with a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The RTX 4070's production status is end-of-life, with the GeForce 50 series as its successor. The MI300A's predecessor is Radeon Instinct.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI300A have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The MI300A has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile rank is 50, which reflects the absence of recorded data rather than a measured performance level.

Q: How does the RTX 4070 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The RTX 4070 has an average benchmark score of 37,648. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla P4, scores 37,628, putting the RTX 4070 0.1% ahead. It is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507), 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (37,157), and 1.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135).

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI300A has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus. The RTX 4070 has 504.2 GB/s from 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus. The MI300A's bandwidth is roughly ten times higher.

Q: Can the MI300A output video to a display?

A: No. The MI300A has no display outputs and lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The RTX 4070 has one HDMI 2.1 output and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The MI300A has a 750 W thermal design power and a suggested power supply of 1150 W. The RTX 4070 has a 200 W thermal design power and a suggested power supply of 550 W.

Q: Does the RTX 4070 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RTX 4070 has 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores. The MI300A lists no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The two products differ on nearly every recorded specification. The MI300A uses CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the RTX 4070 uses Ada Lovelace with the AD104 chip. Both use a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the MI300A has 153,000 million transistors versus 35,800 million for the RTX 4070. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 294 mm², and transistor density is 150.4 million per square millimeter versus 121.8 million.

Base clocks differ substantially: 1000 MHz for the MI300A versus 1920 MHz for the RTX 4070. Boost clocks are 2100 MHz versus 2475 MHz. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective for the MI300A versus 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective for the RTX 4070. Memory size is 128 GB of HBM3 versus 12 GB of GDDR6X. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 504.2 GB/s.

Shading units number 14,592 versus 5,888. Texture mapping units number 912 versus 184. The MI300A has zero raster operation units and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, while the RTX 4070 has 64 raster operation units and a 158.4 GPixel/s pixel rate. Texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 455.4 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 29.15 TFLOPS. The RTX 4070 lists FP16 at 29.15 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio; the MI300A does not list FP16.

Thermal design power is 750 W versus 200 W. The MI300A is an OAM module with no power connectors, while the RTX 4070 is a dual-slot card with one 16-pin connector. Suggested power supply is 1150 W versus 550 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300A has no display outputs; the RTX 4070 has one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a. API support is N/A for the MI300A, while the RTX 4070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4070 measures 240 mm by 110 mm by 40 mm; the MI300A has no listed dimensions. Release dates are December 5, 2023 for the MI300A and April 11, 2023 for the RTX 4070. The RTX 4070 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the MI300A has none recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark results between these two products. The wins counter shows zero for both the MI300A and the RTX 4070. The MI300A has no benchmark entries at all, meaning there is no measured data point to compare against any of the RTX 4070's ten results.

The RTX 4070's recorded benchmarks provide a profile of its own performance. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 it scores 3,854. Geekbench OpenCL returns 154,858 and Geekbench Vulkan returns 174,152. Passmark scores are 139 for DirectX 10, 244 for DirectX 11, 103 for DirectX 12, 320 for DirectX 9, 1,164 for G2D, 26,927 for G3D, and 14,720 for GPU compute. Its average benchmark score is 37,648, placing it at the 81st percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla P4, is within 0.1% at 37,628, and the nearest rival ahead of it, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile, is 1.3% higher at 38,135.

Because the MI300A has no benchmark scores, no statement about its measured performance relative to the RTX 4070 can be made from the database. The only numerical comparison available is architectural: the MI300A's FP32 figure of 61.29 TFLOPS is more than double the RTX 4070's 29.15 TFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s is roughly ten times the RTX 4070's 504.2 GB/s. These are specification-derived values, not benchmark results.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 wins in every category where measured data exists. It has ten benchmark scores, an average score of 37,648, and an 81st percentile ranking. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, has display outputs, and includes 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores. Its 200 W thermal design power and 550 W suggested power supply make it suitable for a standard desktop configuration. Its 12 GB of GDDR6X memory and 504.2 GB/s bandwidth serve graphics and gaming workloads.

The MI300A wins in raw compute specifications. Its 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, 128 GB of HBM3, 8192-bit bus, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth position it as a data-center compute accelerator. Its 750 W thermal design power and OAM module form factor indicate server integration rather than desktop use. Its lack of display outputs and API support confirms that it is not intended for graphics rendering or interactive workloads.

The data shows two products with no overlap in measured performance and no overlap in intended function. The RTX 4070 is the only one of the two with benchmark evidence, and its results place it at the 81st percentile with near-neighbor scores within 1.3%. The MI300A's specification sheet indicates extreme memory capacity and compute throughput, but the database contains no recorded measurements to confirm its realized performance. Any comparison between the two rests on specifications alone, and the specifications point to entirely different deployment environments.