AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI300A and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER occupy fundamentally different positions in the database. The MI300A is a datacenter-oriented compute accelerator with a 50th percentile ranking across all GPUs, while the RTX 4070 SUPER sits at the 83rd percentile with an average benchmark score of 43,223. The RTX 4070 SUPER has recorded benchmark results across ten tests, including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (4,627), Geekbench OpenCL (172,795), Geekbench Vulkan (205,624), and Passmark GPU Compute (17,108). The MI300A has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, giving it an average score of zero.

For users selecting between these two, the recorded data points to the RTX 4070 SUPER for any workload requiring DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, as the MI300A lists all three APIs as N/A. The RTX 4070 SUPER also provides display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the MI300A has no outputs. The MI300A instead offers 128 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 compute, and 1,915.2 GTexel/s texture rate, figures that dwarf the RTX 4070 SUPER's 12 GB GDDR6X, 504.2 GB/s bandwidth, 35.48 TFLOPS, and 554.4 GTexel/s. The MI300A targets compute-heavy environments without graphics output, whereas the RTX 4070 SUPER is a complete graphics solution with a 267 mm length, dual-slot width, and a 16-pin power connector. The data shows no head-to-head benchmark wins for either part, as the head-to-head table is empty. The RTX 4070 SUPER's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB (0.1% behind), RTX 5050 Mobile (0.1% behind), and RTX 4090 Mobile (1% behind), indicating its score sits in a tight cluster near 43,000 to 43,700.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more FP32 compute power?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER delivers 35.48 TFLOPS. The MI300A is 72.8% higher in this metric.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4070 SUPER uses 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The RTX 4070 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The MI300A contains 153,000 million transistors, while the RTX 4070 SUPER contains 35,800 million transistors. The MI300A has 4.27 times more transistors.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER boosts to 2475 MHz, while the MI300A boosts to 2100 MHz. The RTX 4070 SUPER's boost clock is 375 MHz higher.

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

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER scores 43,223 on average, sitting 0.1% ahead of the Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262) and 0.1% ahead of the RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268). The RTX 4090 Mobile is 1% ahead at 43,667.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built for compute acceleration in datacenter contexts. It carries the generation label "Instinct (MIx)" and its predecessor is Radeon Instinct. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD104 chip, belonging to the GeForce 40-series with a predecessor of GeForce 30 and a successor of GeForce 50. Both chips are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the MI300A has a die size of 1017 mm² versus 294 mm² for the AD104, and a transistor density of 150.4M per mm² versus 121.8M per mm².

The MI300A has zero ROPs, zero ray tracing cores, and zero tensor cores listed, with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. It has 14,592 shading units and 912 TMUs. The RTX 4070 SUPER has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 ray tracing cores, and 224 tensor cores, with a pixel rate of 198.0 GPixel/s. The MI300A's texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s exceeds the RTX 4070 SUPER's 554.4 GTexel/s by a factor of 3.45. The MI300A has no display outputs, no power connectors, and presents as an OAM Module, whereas the RTX 4070 SUPER is a dual-slot card with one 16-pin connector. The MI300A has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database, while the RTX 4070 SUPER supports all three.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the RTX 4070 SUPER has a base clock of 1980 MHz and a boost of 2475 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: the MI300A runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, and the RTX 4070 SUPER runs at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective. Memory capacity is 128 GB HBM3 versus 12 GB GDDR6X, and bus width is 8192 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 504.2 GB/s.

Shading units: 14,592 versus 7,168. TMUs: 912 versus 224. ROPs: 0 versus 80. FP32: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 35.48 TFLOPS. The RTX 4070 SUPER lists FP16 at 35.48 TFLOPS (1:1), while the MI300A has no FP16 figure recorded. TDP is 750 W versus 220 W, and suggested PSU is 1150 W versus 550 W. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX 4070 SUPER uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300A has no dimensions recorded, while the RTX 4070 SUPER measures 267 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 42 mm in width. The MI300A's release date is 2023-12-05, and the RTX 4070 SUPER's release date is 2024-01-16. The RTX 4070 SUPER has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The RTX 4070 SUPER is marked end-of-life, while the MI300A has no production status listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the MI300A versus the RTX 4070 SUPER, and the wins counters show zero for both sides. This absence of direct comparisons means the analysis relies on the individual recorded metrics. The MI300A dominates in raw compute specifications: its FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS is 72.8% higher than the RTX 4070 SUPER's 35.48 TFLOPS. The texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s is 3.45 times the RTX 4070 SUPER's 554.4 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s is 10.55 times the RTX 4070 SUPER's 504.2 GB/s, and the 128 GB capacity is more than ten times the 12 GB on the RTX 4070 SUPER.

The RTX 4070 SUPER counters with higher clock speeds: 2475 MHz boost versus 2100 MHz, and 1980 MHz base versus 1000 MHz. It also has a pixel rate of 198.0 GPixel/s, while the MI300A records 0 MPixel/s. The RTX 4070 SUPER has 80 ROPs, 56 ray tracing cores, and 224 tensor cores, none of which exist in the MI300A's recorded specifications. The RTX 4070 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it full graphics API compatibility that the MI300A lacks entirely.

In the benchmark database, the RTX 4070 SUPER's average score of 43,223 places it at the 83rd percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its score: the Quadro M6000 24 GB at 43,262 (0.1% behind), the RTX 5050 Mobile at 43,268 (0.1% behind), the Quadro M6000 at 43,301 (0.2% behind), and the RTX 4090 Mobile at 43,667 (1% ahead). The MI300A has no average score and sits at the 50th percentile with no nearest rivals listed, reflecting its absence of recorded benchmark data rather than a measured performance level.

The power envelope differs sharply: the MI300A draws 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the RTX 4070 SUPER draws 220 W with a 550 W suggested PSU. The MI300A's OAM Module slot width and lack of power connectors indicate a board-integrated datacenter design, whereas the RTX 4070 SUPER's dual-slot form factor, 16-pin connector, and display outputs indicate a consumer graphics card. The MI300A's transistor count of 153,000 million versus 35,800 million further underscores its scale, with a die size of 1017 mm² versus 294 mm².

The data shows no overlap in intended function. The MI300A's compute-oriented features (HBM3, 8192-bit bus, no graphics APIs, no outputs) align with server acceleration tasks, while the RTX 4070 SUPER's feature set (ray tracing cores, tensor cores, display outputs, full API support, 267 mm length) aligns with client graphics workloads. The RTX 4070 SUPER's benchmark scores, including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 4,627, Geekbench OpenCL at 172,795, Geekbench Vulkan at 205,624, and Passmark G3D at 29,995, provide measurable performance data. The MI300A offers no comparable recorded results, so any performance comparison between the two must rely on specification-level differences only.