AMD Instinct MI308X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two accelerators built for entirely different roles. The AMD Instinct MI308X is a compute-oriented module with no display outputs, a 750 W power envelope, and a massive 192 GB HBM3 memory pool. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER is a dual-slot consumer graphics card with 18 GB GDDR7, a 275 W power draw, and full display connectivity. The Instinct MI308X holds a 1.8x advantage in FP32 throughput (81.72 TFLOPS vs 32.15 TFLOPS) and delivers 5.32 TB/s of memory bandwidth versus 672.0 GB/s. The RTX 5070 SUPER counters with a 2.3 GHz boost clock versus 2.1 GHz, 80 raster operation units, 50 ray tracing cores, and 200 tensor cores, none of which the MI308X lists. The data indicates the MI308X is intended for high-throughput compute workloads where memory capacity and raw FP32 matter, while the RTX 5070 SUPER serves graphics, ray tracing, and AI inference tasks with a conventional PCIe card form factor. The RTX 5070 SUPER has one recorded benchmark score (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 2690), placing it at the 18th percentile among all GPUs, while the MI308X has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile. Given the lack of head-to-head benchmark data, the verdict rests on architectural positioning: the MI308X wins on raw compute scale, the RTX 5070 SUPER wins on feature completeness for graphics workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 5 nm TSMC manufacturing node but diverge sharply in scale and design philosophy. The AMD Instinct MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, a 1017 mm² die containing 153,000 million transistors. Its transistor density reaches 150.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB205 chip, a 263 mm² die with 31,100 million transistors, yielding 118.3 million per square millimeter. The MI308X die is 3.9x larger and packs 4.9x more transistors.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI308X uses HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus, 192 GB capacity, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, clocked at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective speed. The RTX 5070 SUPER uses GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus with 18 GB capacity and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth, clocked at 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective speed. The MI308X has 42.7x the bus width and 7.9x the bandwidth.

Compute resources show a similar gulf. The MI308X carries 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and zero raster operation units, producing a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The RTX 5070 SUPER has 6,400 shading units, 200 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 50 RT cores, and 200 tensor cores, with a 502.4 GTexel/s texture rate and 201.0 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI308X has 3.0x the shading units and 5.1x the texture rate, but it cannot rasterize pixels at all. The RTX 5070 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the MI308X lists N/A for all three graphics APIs.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI308X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The RTX 5070 SUPER runs at 2325 MHz base and 2512 MHz boost, a 19.6% higher boost clock. Power consumption mirrors the performance divide: the MI308X has a 750 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 1150 W and no power connectors (OAM module form factor), while the RTX 5070 SUPER draws 275 W and uses a single 16-pin connector in a dual-slot card measuring 245 mm by 115 mm by 40 mm.

Where Each One Wins

The MI308X wins decisively in memory-bound compute scenarios. Its 192 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the RTX 5070 SUPER's 18 GB at 672.0 GB/s. Workloads that require holding large datasets in fast memory, such as large-scale matrix operations or scientific simulations, benefit directly from this capacity and throughput. The MI308X also leads in FP32 and FP16 compute, both rated at 81.72 TFLOPS, versus 32.15 TFLOPS for the RTX 5070 SUPER. The 1:1 FP16 ratio on the MI308X indicates it does not rely on specialized tensor cores for half-precision work, so any FP16 workload sees the full 81.72 TFLOPS.

The RTX 5070 SUPER wins in graphics and interactive rendering. It has 80 ROPs and a 201.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, enabling actual rasterization, while the MI308X lists 0 MPixel/s. The RTX 5070 SUPER includes 50 ray tracing cores and 200 tensor cores, features absent from the MI308X's specification sheet. Its 2512 MHz boost clock and 2325 MHz base clock give it a latency advantage in latency-sensitive tasks. The RTX 5070 SUPER also provides display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b), making it usable as a primary graphics solution, while the MI308X has no outputs.

The single recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2690 for the RTX 5070 SUPER places it 1% above the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M's 2664, 1.1% above the GeForce GT 1030's 2662, 1.1% above the Intel Arc Pro B50's 2660, and 1.7% above the GeForce GT 440's 2645. These deltas are small, indicating the RTX 5070 SUPER's benchmark score sits in a tightly clustered range among older or lower-tier GPUs. The MI308X has no benchmark entries, so no comparable score exists.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 5.32 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM3 interface, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER provides 672.0 GB/s over a 192-bit GDDR7 bus. The MI308X bandwidth is 7.9x higher.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI308X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI308X lists no display outputs and has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, while the RTX 5070 SUPER includes 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs with a 201.0 GPixel/s pixel rate.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI308X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 1150 W, whereas the RTX 5070 SUPER has a 275 W TDP and uses a single 16-pin power connector.

Q: Which chip has more transistors?

A: The MI308X contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, compared to 31,100 million transistors on a 263 mm² die for the RTX 5070 SUPER.

Q: Does the RTX 5070 SUPER support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RTX 5070 SUPER includes 50 ray tracing cores. The MI308X lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The MI308X was released on 2023-12-05, while the RTX 5070 SUPER has a release date of 2025-12-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the two GPUs. The wins counter shows 0 for both sides. However, the recorded specifications allow for comparative analysis. The MI308X leads FP32 compute by 81.72 TFLOPS versus 32.15 TFLOPS, a 2.5x margin. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s exceeds the RTX 5070 SUPER's 502.4 GTexel/s by 5.1x. The memory bandwidth gap is 5.32 TB/s versus 672.0 GB/s, a 7.9x difference. The MI308X also has 192 GB versus 18 GB of memory, a 10.7x capacity advantage.

The RTX 5070 SUPER counters with a 2512 MHz boost clock versus 2100 MHz, a 19.6% higher clock. It maintains a 201.0 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 0 MPixel/s, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, all rated N/A for the MI308X. The RTX 5070 SUPER's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2690 sits at the 18th percentile of all GPUs, while the MI308X has no benchmark score and a 50th percentile ranking. The nearest rivals for the RTX 5070 SUPER are all within 1.7% of its score: the Quadro K1100M at 2664 (1% behind), the GT 1030 at 2662 (1.1% behind), the Arc Pro B50 at 2660 (1.1% behind), and the GT 440 at 2645 (1.7% behind). These comparisons indicate that the RTX 5070 SUPER's single recorded score is only marginally ahead of much older or lower-tier hardware, which may reflect the benchmark's workload characteristics rather than the card's overall capability.

Specification Differences

| Feature | AMD Instinct MI308X | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | GB205 |

| Process node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 31,100 million |

| Die size | 1017 mm² | 263 mm² |

| Transistor density | 150.4M / mm² | 118.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 2325 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2100 MHz | 2512 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz 28 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 192 GB | 18 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3 | GDDR7 |

| Memory bus width | 8192 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 19,456 | 6,400 |

| Texture mapping units | 1,216 | 200 |

| Raster operation units | 0 | 80 |

| Ray tracing cores | None listed | 50 |

| Tensor cores | None listed | 200 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 201.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 502.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 32.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 32.15 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 275 W |

| Slot width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | None listed |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 245 mm x 115 mm x 40 mm |

| Release date | 2023-12-05 | 2025-12-31 |

| Production status | Not listed | Active |