AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER occupy completely different roles in the hardware landscape. The data shows no overlapping benchmark results for the MI300A; the database records zero benchmark scores for that part, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a full suite of ten recorded tests. This absence of head-to-head results is itself the primary finding.

The MI300A is built around a compute-oriented CDNA 3.0 architecture with 128 GB of HBM3 memory and a 8192-bit bus, producing 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. Its 14,592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units target raw throughput, as indicated by 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 1,915.2 GTexel/s texture rate. The chip is rated at 750 W TDP, uses an OAM Module slot, and has no display outputs. This part is designed for acceleration workloads that demand massive memory capacity and sustained compute, not for rendering frames to a monitor.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, in contrast, is a conventional graphics card with a triple-slot design, 1x 16-pin power connector, and display outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Its 16 GB GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 672.3 GB/s, far below the MI300A's bandwidth but still substantial for gaming and workstation tasks. The card's 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and DLSS features, which the MI300A lacks entirely. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER posts a 76th percentile ranking across all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 31,087.

The use-case split is stark: the MI300A targets server-class computation where memory capacity and FP32 throughput dominate, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER targets client-side rendering, ray tracing, and tensor workloads. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's benchmark scores, such as 31,811 in Passmark G3D and 18,372 in Passmark GPU Compute, confirm its dual role in both rasterization and compute. The MI300A has no such recorded results, suggesting its evaluation relies on different metrics not captured in this database's benchmark suite.

FAQ

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

A: No. The database records zero benchmarks for the MI300A, and its average benchmark score is 0. Its percentile ranking against all GPUs is 50, but this is based on no recorded test data.

Q: How does the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER averages 31,087. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 scores 31,206 (0.4% higher), the GRID M60-1Q scores 31,220 (0.4% higher), the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell scores 31,532 (1.4% higher), and the TITAN RTX scores 31,676 (1.9% higher). The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits within 2% of all four rivals, indicating tight competition in this performance tier.

Q: What memory specifications differentiate the two products?

A: The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 672.3 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300A offers 8 times the capacity and roughly 7.9 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which product has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER delivers 44.10 TFLOPS. The MI300A is about 39% ahead in this metric.

Q: Does the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER support ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: Yes. It has 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores. The MI300A has no recorded RT cores or tensor cores.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER?

A: The launch MSRP is 799 USD. The MI300A has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark results exist between the MI300A and the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER in the database. The headToHeadBenchmarks field is empty, and the wins counters are zero for both sides. This is not a case of one product dominating; rather, the two are never measured against each other in any recorded test.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's ten individual benchmark scores provide the only quantitative performance data available for this comparison. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 5,569. Geekbench OpenCL yields 199,267, while Geekbench Vulkan returns 53,683. Passmark results span multiple DirectX versions: DirectX 10 scores 181, DirectX 11 scores 278, DirectX 12 scores 119, and DirectX 9 scores 360. The Passmark G2D score is 1,225, G3D is 31,811, and GPU Compute is 18,372.

These numbers show a pattern: the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER excels in modern API workloads (OpenCL, Vulkan, G3D) while scoring lower in legacy DirectX tests. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 199,267 is particularly strong, indicating robust general-purpose compute performance. The Vulkan score of 53,683 is substantially lower than OpenCL, suggesting API-specific optimization differences.

The MI300A, with no benchmarks, cannot be directly compared on any of these tests. Its specification sheet suggests it would outperform the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER in raw FP32 compute (61.29 versus 44.10 TFLOPS) and memory bandwidth (5.32 TB/s versus 672.3 GB/s), but no recorded measurement confirms this. The database treats the MI300A as an unmeasured entity, and any performance claims must rely solely on its listed specifications.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every measurable specification. The MI300A uses a 5 nm process from TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER also uses a 5 nm TSMC process but packs 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, with a density of 121.1M per mm². The MI300A has roughly 3.3 times the transistor count and 2.7 times the die area.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The MI300A runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, with memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a much higher base clock of 2340 MHz and boost of 2610 MHz, with memory at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). The RTX card's higher clocks indicate a design aimed at bursty client workloads, while the MI300A's lower clocks prioritize sustained throughput.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The MI300A offers 128 GB of HBM3 with 8192-bit bus width, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER offers 16 GB of GDDR6X with 256-bit bus. Bandwidth favors the MI300A at 5.32 TB/s versus 672.3 GB/s. The RTX card's 21 Gbps effective memory speed is higher per-pin, but the MI300A's wider bus delivers far more aggregate bandwidth.

Compute units also differ. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 8,448 shading units, 264 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 250.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 689.0 GTexel/s. The MI300A has 73% more shading units and 245% more TMUs, but no ROPs, confirming it is not designed for pixel output.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The MI300A has a 750 W TDP, no power connectors, an OAM Module slot, and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a 285 W TDP, a single 16-pin connector, a triple-slot design, and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The RTX card measures 310 mm in length, 140 mm in height, and 61 mm in width. The MI300A has no recorded dimensions.

Bus interface and display outputs differ. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has no display outputs. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support also differs: the MI300A has N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, a design optimized for compute acceleration. Its chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation with a predecessor of Radeon Instinct. The architecture lacks ROPs entirely and has no RT or tensor cores, indicating a pure compute pipeline focused on FP32 and texture operations. The 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die suggest a massive multi-die or chiplet design, typical of accelerator-class silicon.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD103 chip, part of the GeForce 40-series and GeForce 40 generation. Its predecessor is GeForce 30, and its successor is GeForce 50. Ada Lovelace introduces dedicated RT cores (66) and tensor cores (264), enabling hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it fully compatible with consumer graphics APIs.

Process technology is identical: both use 5 nm TSMC fabrication. However, the transistor density differs, with the MI300A at 150.4M per mm² versus 121.1M per mm² for the RTX card. This higher density on the MI300A suggests more aggressive use of the process node, possibly with different cell libraries or design priorities.

Memory architecture is the defining difference. The MI300A uses HBM3, a high-bandwidth stacked memory design that achieves 5.32 TB/s through an 8192-bit interface. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses GDDR6X, a traditional discrete memory design on a 256-bit bus, achieving 672.3 GB/s. HBM3's stacked nature allows for enormous bandwidth but requires the OAM Module form factor, which is incompatible with standard PCIe slots in consumer systems.

The MI300A's lack of display outputs and API support indicates it is not intended for interactive graphics. Its CDNA 3.0 architecture prioritizes compute density and memory bandwidth over rendering features. In contrast, Ada Lovelace includes every feature expected of a modern consumer GPU, from ray tracing cores to tensor cores to display outputs.

The Verdict

The data points to two products with no functional overlap. The MI300A is a compute accelerator with 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, 128 GB HBM3, and a 750 W TDP, designed for deployment in OAM modules within server systems. Its lack of ROPs, display outputs, and API support makes it unsuitable for rendering or client-side workloads. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is a consumer graphics card with 44.10 TFLOPS FP32, 16 GB GDDR6X, 66 RT cores, 264 tensor cores, and full display output support, designed for gaming and workstation use.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's benchmark scores place it in the 76th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 31,087. Its nearest rivals, all within 2% of its score, include the Quadro M5000, GRID M60-1Q, RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell, and TITAN RTX. This indicates the RTX card performs competitively within its peer group, though it trails all four in raw average score.

The MI300A has no recorded benchmarks, so no performance validation exists in this database. Its specification sheet suggests it would dominate in memory bandwidth (5.32 TB/s versus 672.3 GB/s) and FP32 throughput (61.29 versus 44.10 TFLOPS), but these are unverified claims. The 50th percentile ranking for the MI300A is based on no measurements, making it a placeholder rather than a meaningful statistic.

For any workload requiring rendering, ray tracing, or tensor operations, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the only viable choice between these two, as the MI300A lacks those capabilities entirely. For compute workloads requiring massive memory capacity and bandwidth, the MI300A's specifications indicate a purpose-built solution, but the absence of benchmark data prevents any quantitative confirmation. The choice depends entirely on whether the task demands display output and graphics APIs or pure compute throughput. The database records no scenario where both products could serve the same function.