AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark entries for either the AMD Instinct MI325X or the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103. Both products show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. Consequently, there are no direct performance comparisons, no win counts for either side, and no percentile deltas against rivals to interpret. The percentileVsAllGpus field places both at the 50th percentile, but with no underlying scores, this metric carries no comparative weight.

The absence of benchmark data does not mean the two products are equivalent. The specification sheets reveal fundamentally different design goals. The MI325X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The RTX 4070 AD103 is a consumer graphics card with full API support, 64 ROPs, and a pixel rate of 158.4 GPixel/s. These are not competing products in the same segment; they simply share a database classification.

Without measured performance numbers, the only quantitative comparison available is derived from the raw specifications. The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the RTX 4070 AD103 delivers 29.15 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.15 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). That is a 2.8x advantage in FP32 throughput for the AMD part. The texture rate also favors AMD: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 455.4 GTexel/s, a 5.6x difference. These are theoretical peak rates, not measured application performance, but they indicate the MI325X is built for raw compute density.

The memory subsystem further separates the two. The MI325X carries 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4070 AD103 has 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus, achieving 504.2 GB/s. The AMD accelerator has 21x the memory capacity and roughly 12x the bandwidth. The NVIDIA card compensates with higher clock speeds: base 1920 MHz and boost 2475 MHz, versus 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost for the MI325X. But clock speed alone does not bridge the massive gap in memory and compute resources.

Where Each One Wins

The MI325X wins decisively in compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures position it as a data-center-class processor for workloads that saturate parallel arithmetic units. The 256 GB HBM3e pool with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth suits large model training, scientific simulation, and other memory-bound tasks where the RTX 4070 AD103's 12 GB and 504.2 GB/s would be a limiting factor. The 8192-bit bus width is unprecedented in the consumer segment.

The RTX 4070 AD103 wins in every consumer-facing metric. It has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 158.4 GPixel/s, enabling rasterization and display output. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with gaming and workstation graphics applications. It includes 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores, which the MI325X lacks entirely. The NVIDIA card also operates at a lower 200 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU, making it feasible for standard desktop systems. The MI325X requires 1000 W TDP and a 1400 W suggested PSU, which is beyond typical consumer power supplies.

The MI325X has zero ROPs, zero RT cores, zero tensor cores, and no display outputs. It cannot render graphics, cannot ray trace, and cannot output video. The RTX 4070 AD103 has all of those capabilities. Conversely, the RTX 4070 AD103 cannot approach the MI325X's memory capacity or FP32 throughput for compute-heavy workloads. The data indicates a strict division: the MI325X for accelerator-style compute, the RTX 4070 AD103 for graphics and general-purpose consumer workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two chips are built on different architectures from different design philosophies. The MI325X uses CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-focused architecture, implemented on the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The RTX 4070 AD103 uses Ada Lovelace, NVIDIA's graphics and compute architecture, implemented on the AD103 chip. Both use a 5 nm process node from TSMC, but the similarities end there.

Transistor counts diverge sharply. The MI325X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The RTX 4070 AD103 contains 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, with a density of 121.1M per mm². The AMD chip is 3.3x larger in die area and has 3.3x more transistors. The density difference suggests the MI325X uses more compact SRAM or logic cells, likely due to the HBM3e interface and massive compute array.

The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs. The RTX 4070 AD103 has 5,888 shading units and 184 TMUs. That is a 3.3x advantage in shading units and a 6.6x advantage in TMUs for the AMD part. The MI325X has no ROPs, no RT cores, and no tensor cores, while the RTX 4070 AD103 has 64 ROPs, 46 RT cores, and 184 tensor cores. The architecture difference is not just about quantity; it is about specialization. CDNA 3.0 omits graphics fixed-function units entirely, while Ada Lovelace includes them alongside its tensor and RT cores.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI325X uses HBM3e with a 1500 MHz clock and 6 Gbps effective speed, on an 8192-bit bus. The RTX 4070 AD103 uses GDDR6X with a 1313 MHz clock and 21 Gbps effective speed, on a 192-bit bus. The HBM3e implementation provides far higher bandwidth but requires a much larger die and more complex packaging. The GDDR6X approach is simpler and cheaper but bandwidth-limited. The MI325X's memory clock is lower (1500 MHz vs 1313 MHz is actually higher, but the effective speed differs: 6 Gbps vs 21 Gbps per pin), yet the bus width compensates massively.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every specification field. Process node and foundry are identical: 5 nm and TSMC. Everything else diverges.

| Field | AMD Instinct MI325X | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 |

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

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | AD103 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 45,900 million |

| Die size | 1017 mm² | 379 mm² |

| Transistor density | 150.4M / mm² | 121.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 1920 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2100 MHz | 2475 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1313 MHz, 21 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 256 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3e | GDDR6X |

| Memory bus | 8192 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 6.14 TB/s | 504.2 GB/s |

| Shading units | 19,456 | 5,888 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 184 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| RT cores | None | 46 |

| Tensor cores | None | 184 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 158.4 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 455.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 29.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 29.15 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 200 W |

| Slot width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 550 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 |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 240 mm x 110 mm x 40 mm |

| Release date | 2024-10-09 | 2024-02-29 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | GeForce 30 |

| Successor | None | GeForce 50 |

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

The MI325X has no directX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, no display outputs, and no power connectors listed (likely due to its OAM module form factor). The RTX 4070 AD103 has a 240 mm length, 110 mm height, and 40 mm width, fitting standard desktop cases. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI325X versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX 4070 AD103.

FAQ

Q: Which product has more FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 delivers 29.15 TFLOPS FP32. The MI325X has 2.8x the FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the MI325X support graphics APIs?

A: No. The MI325X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, and has no display outputs. The RTX 4070 AD103 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory, while the RTX 4070 AD103 has 12 GB of GDDR6X. The MI325X has 21x the memory capacity.

Q: Which product has higher boost clock?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 has a boost clock of 2475 MHz, compared to the MI325X's 2100 MHz. However, the MI325X has far more shading units and TMUs.

Q: Does the MI325X have ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The MI325X has zero RT cores and zero tensor cores. The RTX 4070 AD103 has 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores.

Q: What are the TDP requirements?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP with a 1400 W suggested PSU. The RTX 4070 AD103 has a 200 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data shows two products with no overlap in purpose. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a compute accelerator with 256 GB HBM3e, 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, and no graphics capabilities. It uses PCIe 5.0 x16, an OAM module slot, and requires a 1400 W PSU. It is designed for server racks, AI training clusters, and scientific workloads where memory bandwidth and capacity are paramount. The absence of display outputs and graphics APIs confirms this.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 is a consumer graphics card with 12 GB GDDR6X, 29.15 TFLOPS FP32, 158.4 GPixel/s pixel rate, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. It has 64 ROPs, 46 RT cores, and 184 tensor cores, enabling gaming, ray tracing, and AI-accelerated graphics. Its 200 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU make it suitable for desktop systems. It was released earlier (2024-02-29 versus 2024-10-09) and is already end-of-life, with the GeForce 50 as its successor.

For compute-centric workloads that do not require display output, the MI325X is the clear choice based on its 2.8x FP32 advantage, 12x memory bandwidth advantage, and 21x memory capacity. For any workload involving graphics, ray tracing, tensor operations for consumer AI, or standard desktop use, the RTX 4070 AD103 is the only viable option. The MI325X cannot render frames, cannot output video, and cannot run graphics APIs. The RTX 4070 AD103 cannot scale to the MI325X's memory or compute throughput.

The percentileVsAllGpus field places both at 50, but with no benchmark scores, this is a placeholder rather than a measured result. The specification differences are stark enough to make the product positioning clear without performance data. Those who need massive HBM3e bandwidth and high FP32 throughput should use the MI325X. Those who need a functional graphics card with API support and display outputs should use the RTX 4070 AD103. There is no scenario in the recorded data where these two products compete directly.