AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Instinct MI325X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile occupy completely different segments, and the recorded data confirms this immediately. The MI325X has no benchmark entries in the database, while the RTX 4070 Mobile has nine recorded scores. This absence of data for the MI325X is itself a finding: the accelerator is not tested in the consumer benchmark suites where the RTX 4070 Mobile appears.

The RTX 4070 Mobile delivers an average benchmark score of 27435 across its recorded tests. Its best results come from Geekbench OpenCL at 109197 and Geekbench Vulkan at 108367. The PassMark G3D score of 19587 and the GPU compute score of 8399 round out the meaningful compute results. The DirectX tests show lower figures, with DirectX 9 at 223, DirectX 11 at 179, DirectX 10 at 116, and DirectX 12 at 85. The G2D score of 763 reflects the mobile part's 2D capabilities.

The MI325X has no comparable scores, so a direct numerical comparison is impossible from the database. Instead, the comparison must rely on architectural specifications and the position each part holds in its respective segment. The MI325X sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RTX 4070 Mobile sits at the 73rd percentile. That percentile gap indicates that the RTX 4070 Mobile outperforms a larger share of the database population than the MI325X does, though the MI325X's lack of benchmark participation makes this percentile less informative.

The RTX 4070 Mobile's nearest rivals show how tightly it clusters with other high-end parts. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT scores 27425, a delta of 0 percent. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 scores 27565, a delta of -0.5 percent. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell scores 27135, a delta of 1.1 percent. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 scores 27839, a delta of -1.5 percent. These small deltas indicate the RTX 4070 Mobile performs within 1.5 percent of several desktop-class and workstation parts, which is notable for a mobile GPU.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Mobile wins in every area where measurement data exists. It has recorded scores in OpenCL, Vulkan, DirectX 9 through 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute. The MI325X has no recorded benchmarks, so it cannot claim a win in any measured test in the database.

The use-case split is therefore defined by the parts' intended roles rather than by measured performance. The RTX 4070 Mobile is a mobile graphics processor with a 115 W TDP, a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, and display outputs that are portable device dependent. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has 36 ray tracing cores and 144 tensor cores, which positions it for gaming, ray-traced workloads, and AI-accelerated tasks in a laptop form factor.

The MI325X is an Instinct-series accelerator with a 1000 W TDP, an OAM module slot width, no display outputs, and no supported graphics APIs. Its memory subsystem is 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. That configuration targets data-center compute, large model inference, and high-bandwidth scientific workloads, not interactive graphics. The absence of API support and display outputs confirms this part is not designed for end-user rendering.

The data shows the RTX 4070 Mobile wins in measured benchmark performance, feature completeness for consumer workloads, and software ecosystem support. The MI325X wins in raw memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and FP32 compute throughput, but those advantages are not reflected in any database benchmark score.

Architecture Differences

The two parts share a 5 nm process node from TSMC, but diverge everywhere else. The MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the RTX 4070 Mobile uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD106 chip. The MI325X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, and the RTX 4070 Mobile belongs to the GeForce 40 Mobile generation.

The transistor counts differ substantially. The MI325X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The RTX 4070 Mobile has 22,900 million transistors on an 188 mm² die, giving a density of 121.8M per mm². The MI325X uses its much larger die and higher transistor budget for a massive compute and memory configuration.

The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, but 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. Its texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s, and its FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS with FP16 at the same 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1). The RTX 4070 Mobile has 4,608 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 81.36 GPixel/s, texture rate is 244.1 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 15.62 TFLOPS with FP16 at 15.62 TFLOPS (1:1). The MI325X delivers more than five times the FP32 throughput.

Memory architecture is the largest differentiator. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4070 Mobile uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI325X has 32 times the memory capacity and roughly 24 times the bandwidth, based on the recorded figures.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI325X has a 1000 MHz base clock and a 2100 MHz boost clock, with memory at 1500 MHz or 6 Gbps effective. The RTX 4070 Mobile has a 1395 MHz base clock and a 1695 MHz boost clock, with memory at 2000 MHz or 16 Gbps effective. The mobile part runs higher base clocks, but the MI325X boosts much higher.

The RTX 4070 Mobile includes 36 ray tracing cores and 144 tensor cores. The MI325X lists no RT cores and no tensor cores in the database. The MI325X has no API support, while the RTX 4070 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interfaces differ as well: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI325X versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX 4070 Mobile. The TDP gap is enormous, 1000 W versus 115 W, and the MI325X requires a suggested 1400 W power supply while the RTX 4070 Mobile has no suggested PSU listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile delivers 15.62 TFLOPS FP32. The MI325X is roughly 5.2 times higher.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4070 Mobile has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Why does the RTX 4070 Mobile have benchmark scores but the MI325X does not?

A: The database contains nine benchmark entries for the RTX 4070 Mobile, including Geekbench OpenCL at 109197 and PassMark G3D at 19587. No benchmark entries are recorded for the MI325X.

Q: What is the TDP of each part?

A: The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RTX 4070 Mobile has a TDP of 115 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Does the MI325X support graphics APIs?

A: No. The MI325X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The RTX 4070 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

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

A: Its average benchmark score is 27435. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is at 27425 (0 percent delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 is at 27565 (-0.5 percent), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell is at 27135 (1.1 percent), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 is at 27839 (-1.5 percent).

The Verdict

The data separates these two parts cleanly by purpose. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile is a measured, benchmarked mobile GPU with a 73rd percentile standing, nine recorded scores, and support for modern graphics APIs, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and display outputs. It is a complete consumer-facing graphics solution.

The AMD Instinct MI325X is a data-center accelerator with no benchmark scores, no display outputs, no API support, and a 1000 W TDP. Its strengths are architectural: 256 GB of HBM3e, 6.14 TB/s memory bandwidth, 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. These specifications target high-bandwidth compute workloads, not measured consumer benchmarks.

For a mobile workstation or gaming laptop, the RTX 4070 Mobile is the only viable choice from the data, given its recorded performance and feature set. For large-scale compute tasks requiring massive memory capacity and bandwidth, the MI325X's specifications indicate it is built for that role, despite having no benchmark entries. The RTX 4070 Mobile's nearest rival deltas, all within 1.5 percent, confirm it competes at a high level among consumer GPUs. The MI325X's lack of measurement data means its performance relative to other accelerators cannot be assessed from the database.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 (MI325X) versus Ada Lovelace (RTX 4070 Mobile)
• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram versus AD106
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus GeForce 40 Mobile
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus 22,900 million
• Die Size: 1017 mm² versus 188 mm²
• Transistor Density: 150.4M / mm² versus 121.8M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz versus 1395 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2100 MHz versus 1695 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective versus 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 256 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory Type: HBM3e versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 6.14 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 19,456 versus 4,608
• TMUs: 1,216 versus 144
• ROPs: 0 versus 48
• RT Cores: None listed versus 36
• Tensor Cores: None listed versus 144
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 81.36 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 244.1 GTexel/s
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 15.62 TFLOPS
• TDP: 1000 W versus 115 W
• Slot Width: OAM Module versus IGP
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W versus none listed
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4
• Production Status: Not listed versus Active
• Release Date: 2024-10-09 versus 2023-01-02
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus GeForce 30 Mobile
• Successor: None listed versus GeForce 50 Mobile
• Percentile: 50 versus 73
• Average Benchmark Score: 0 versus 27435