AMD Instinct MI308X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head test results between the AMD Instinct MI308X and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti. The Instinct MI308X has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. The RTX 4070 Ti, by contrast, has ten recorded benchmark entries and an average benchmark score of 44795, placing it at the 84th percentile.

The RTX 4070 Ti delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5024. In Geekbench, it records 176953 for OpenCL and 213808 for Vulkan. PassMark results include a G3D score of 31624, a GPU compute score of 18396, and legacy DirectX scores of 352 for DX9, 288 for DX11, 187 for DX10, and 116 for DX12. Its PassMark G2D score is 1200.

Because the MI308X lacks any benchmark entries, the database cannot calculate comparative deltas. The RTX 4070 Ti's nearest rivals in the database show how it sits relative to other cards: the RTX 5090 Mobile scores 45152, which is 0.8% lower; the Radeon Pro 5500 XT scores 45384, 1.3% lower; the RTX A6000 scores 44075, 1.6% higher; and the Intel Arc A730M scores 45592, 1.7% lower. These deltas confirm the RTX 4070 Ti sits in a tight competitive cluster, within roughly two percent of four other GPUs.

The absence of MI308X scores means the only measurable head-to-head data comes from architectural specifications, which are covered in later sections. For raw benchmark output, the RTX 4070 Ti is the only card in this comparison with verifiable results.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti wins outright in every benchmark category because it is the only card with recorded scores. Its strengths appear across synthetic workloads: DirectX 12 performance is represented by the 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 5024, while API-agnostic compute is covered by Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results. PassMark scores show balanced performance across older DirectX versions, with DX9 (352) notably higher than DX12 (116), indicating strong legacy driver paths.

The MI308X cannot claim a benchmark win, but its specifications point to different strengths. It offers 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, compared to 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus at 504.2 GB/s for the RTX 4070 Ti. The MI308X also has 19456 shading units versus 7680, and an FP32 rating of 81.72 TFLOPS versus 40.09 TFLOPS. These numbers suggest the MI308X is built for massive data-parallel workloads where memory capacity and bandwidth dominate, not for the interactive graphics tasks the RTX 4070 Ti handles.

The RTX 4070 Ti delivers display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a) and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X has no display outputs and lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The use-case split is clear: the RTX 4070 Ti is a consumer graphics card for rendering and gaming, while the MI308X targets server-side compute without any display capability.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturers and architectures. The MI308X uses AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture, built around the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the RTX 4070 Ti uses NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD104 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The MI308X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The RTX 4070 Ti has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 121.8 million per mm². The MI308X is the larger and denser chip by a wide margin.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The MI308X runs at a base of 1000 MHz and boosts to 2100 MHz. The RTX 4070 Ti has a higher base clock of 2310 MHz and a boost of 2610 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the MI308X uses 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the RTX 4070 Ti uses 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective. The RTX 4070 Ti's memory runs at a higher effective transfer rate per pin, but the MI308X compensates with a vastly wider bus.

The MI308X has 1216 texture mapping units and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, versus 240 TMUs and 626.4 GTexel/s for the RTX 4070 Ti. The MI308X lists 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, while the RTX 4070 Ti has 80 ROPs and a pixel rate of 208.8 GPixel/s. The MI308X has no dedicated RT cores or tensor cores listed, while the RTX 4070 Ti includes 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores. The MI308X reports FP16 at 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), and the RTX 4070 Ti reports FP16 at 40.09 TFLOPS (also 1:1).

Power and form factor diverge sharply. The MI308X is an OAM module with no power connectors and a 750 W TDP, requiring a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RTX 4070 Ti is a dual-slot card with a single 16-pin connector, 285 W TDP, and a 600 W suggested PSU. The MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX 4070 Ti uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI308X has no dimensions listed, while the RTX 4070 Ti measures 285 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 42 mm in width.

Release dates differ by about eleven months. The RTX 4070 Ti was released on January 2, 2023, and is marked end-of-life, with the GeForce 50 series as its successor. The MI308X was released on December 5, 2023, and has no successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, which is more than double the RTX 4070 Ti's 40.09 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3 on a 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4070 Ti has 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports display output?

A: Only the RTX 4070 Ti, which provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The MI308X has no display outputs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI308X has a 750 W TDP and recommends a 1150 W PSU. The RTX 4070 Ti has a 285 W TDP and recommends a 600 W PSU.

Q: Does the MI308X support DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the MI308X. The RTX 4070 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has RT and tensor cores?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti includes 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores. The MI308X lists no RT cores and no tensor cores.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear division of roles. The RTX 4070 Ti is the only card with benchmark results, an 84th percentile ranking, and an average score of 44795. It is a finished, consumer-facing product with display outputs, API support, and a compact dual-slot design. Its nearest rivals sit within 1.7% of its average score, showing it is competitive in its class.

The MI308X has no benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile by default. Its specifications describe a fundamentally different device: 192 GB of HBM3, 5.32 TB/s of memory bandwidth, 19456 shading units, and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32. It has no ROPs, no pixel rate, no display outputs, and no graphics API support. These are not deficiencies for its intended role; they indicate a compute accelerator rather than a graphics card.

A builder selecting for gaming, desktop rendering, or any interactive workload should choose the RTX 4070 Ti. It delivers measured performance, supports modern graphics APIs, and fits in a standard dual-slot chassis with a 16-pin connector. A datacenter operator needing massive memory capacity and bandwidth for compute tasks should consider the MI308X, but must accept the absence of display outputs, the OAM module form factor, the 750 W TDP, and the lack of benchmark validation in this database.

The data does not support a direct performance comparison. The RTX 4070 Ti wins every recorded benchmark by default, while the MI308X wins on memory capacity, bandwidth, shader count, and FP32 throughput. The correct choice depends entirely on whether the workload requires graphics output and API compatibility, which only the RTX 4070 Ti provides, or extreme memory and compute resources, which only the MI308X provides.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI308X | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | AD104 |

| Process node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 35,800 million |

| Die size | 1017 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor density | 150.4M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 2310 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2100 MHz | 2610 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective | 1313 MHz, 21 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 192 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3 | GDDR6X |

| Memory bus width | 8192 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 504.2 GB/s |

| Shading units | 19456 | 7680 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 240 |

| ROPs | 0 | 80 |

| RT cores | None listed | 60 |

| Tensor cores | None listed | 240 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 208.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 626.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 40.09 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 40.09 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 285 W |

| Slot width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 600 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release date | 2023-12-05 | 2023-01-02 |

| Production status | Not listed | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | GeForce 30 |

| Successor | None listed | GeForce 50 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 799 USD |

| Benchmark scores | None recorded | 3DMark Steel Nomad: 5024, Geekbench OpenCL: 176953, Geekbench Vulkan: 213808, PassMark G3D: 31624, PassMark GPU Compute: 18396 |