AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a stark contrast between two GPUs built for entirely different purposes. The AMD Instinct MI325X is an accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and zero pixel rate. It is not designed to render frames. Its benchmark profile is empty, with an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, by contrast, is a fully realized graphics card with a rich benchmark portfolio. It holds a percentile ranking of 83, an average benchmark score of 43,223, and delivers measurable results across DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, OpenCL, Vulkan, and compute workloads.

The use-case split is therefore unambiguous. The MI325X is oriented toward data-center compute, with 256 GB of HBM3e memory and 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. It has no rasterization or ray tracing hardware listed. The RTX 4070 SUPER is a consumer rendering card, equipped with 56 RT cores, 224 tensor cores, 80 ROPs, and a 198.0 GPixel/s pixel rate. Benchmark wins for the MI325X cannot be enumerated because the database contains no benchmark entries for it. The RTX 4070 SUPER wins every recorded test by default, simply because it is the only one with recorded results.

The data implies that the MI325X is not a competitor in the traditional graphics benchmark sense. It is an OAM module with a 1000 W TDP and no power connectors, relying on the host system for power delivery. The RTX 4070 SUPER is a dual-slot card with a 220 W TDP and a single 16-pin connector. These are different product categories, and the benchmark database reflects that division clearly.

Architecture Differences

The two chips share a manufacturing node but diverge almost everywhere else. Both use a 5 nm process at TSMC, yet the transistor counts are vastly different. The MI325X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The RTX 4070 SUPER uses the AD104 chip with 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The MI325X die is more than three times larger and carries more than four times the transistor count.

The architecture names tell the story. The MI325X uses CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-focused design, on the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The RTX 4070 SUPER uses Ada Lovelace, NVIDIA's graphics architecture, on the AD104 chip. CDNA 3.0 omits the graphics pipeline entirely: the MI325X reports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, no RT cores, no tensor cores, and no ROPs. Ada Lovelace includes all of them.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, producing 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4070 SUPER uses 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus, producing 504.2 GB/s. That is a 12x difference in bandwidth in favor of the MI325X, and a 21x difference in capacity. Clock behavior also differs. The MI325X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz, while the RTX 4070 SUPER runs at 1980 MHz base and 2475 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card operates at higher frequencies, but the AMD card compensates with far more compute units.

Compute resources are heavily skewed. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and delivers 81.72 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16. The RTX 4070 SUPER has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and delivers 35.48 TFLOPS in FP32 and FP16. The AMD part provides roughly 2.3 times the raw floating-point throughput. Texture rate follows: 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI325X versus 554.4 GTexel/s for the RTX 4070 SUPER. The pixel rate reverses this, with the MI325X at 0 MPixel/s and the RTX 4070 SUPER at 198.0 GPixel/s.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Instinct MI325X have no benchmark scores?

A: The database lists no benchmark entries for the MI325X, and its average benchmark score is 0. This is consistent with its profile as an OAM compute module with no display outputs and no graphics API support.

Q: How does memory capacity compare between the two?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus. The RTX 4070 SUPER has 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The MI325X reaches 6.14 TB/s. The RTX 4070 SUPER reaches 504.2 GB/s.

Q: Does the RTX 4070 SUPER support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RTX 4070 SUPER includes 56 RT cores, and its DirectX support is rated as 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. The RTX 4070 SUPER has a 220 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER boosts to 2475 MHz, while the MI325X boosts to 2100 MHz.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets diverge on nearly every measurable field. The MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the RTX 4070 SUPER uses Ada Lovelace with the AD104 chip. The MI325X is in the Instinct (MIx) generation; the RTX 4070 SUPER is in the GeForce 40 generation. The MI325X has no series designation, while the RTX 4070 SUPER belongs to the GeForce 40-series.

Transistor count is 153,000 million for the MI325X versus 35,800 million for the RTX 4070 SUPER. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density is 150.4 million per square millimeter versus 121.8 million. Shading units are 19,456 versus 7,168. TMUs are 1,216 versus 224. ROPs are 0 versus 80. RT cores are absent on the MI325X, while the RTX 4070 SUPER has 56. Tensor cores are absent on the MI325X, while the RTX 4070 SUPER has 224.

Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 198.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 554.4 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 35.48 TFLOPS. FP16 is also 81.72 TFLOPS versus 35.48 TFLOPS, with both listed as 1:1 ratios.

Memory size is 256 GB versus 12 GB. Memory type is HBM3e versus GDDR6X. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth is 6.14 TB/s versus 504.2 GB/s. Base clock is 1000 MHz versus 1980 MHz. Boost clock is 2100 MHz versus 2475 MHz. Memory clock is 1500 MHz 6 Gbps effective versus 1313 MHz 21 Gbps effective.

TDP is 1000 W versus 220 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 1x 16-pin. Suggested PSU is 1400 W versus 550 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are none versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The MI325X has no API support; the RTX 4070 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates differ by roughly nine months. The MI325X launched on 2024-10-09. The RTX 4070 SUPER launched on 2024-01-16. The RTX 4070 SUPER has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, is marked end-of-life, and has a successor in the GeForce 50 series. The MI325X lists no MSRP, no production status, and no successor. The RTX 4070 SUPER measures 267 mm by 112 mm by 42 mm. The MI325X has no recorded dimensions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct comparison is limited because the MI325X has no recorded benchmarks. The head-to-head table in the database is empty, and wins for each side are zero. The RTX 4070 SUPER provides the only measurable data. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 4,627. Geekbench OpenCL is 172,795, and Geekbench Vulkan is 205,624. Passmark scores are 167 in DirectX 10, 273 in DirectX 11, 110 in DirectX 12, 344 in DirectX 9, 1,184 in G2D, 29,995 in G3D, and 17,108 in GPU compute.

The nearest rivals for the RTX 4070 SUPER provide context for its standing. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB averages 43,262, which is 0.1% lower than the RTX 4070 SUPER's average of 43,223. The GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile averages 43,268, also 0.1% lower. The Quadro M6000 averages 43,301, which is 0.2% lower. The GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile averages 43,667, which is 1% higher. The RTX 4070 SUPER sits slightly below all four of these rivals in average score, with the smallest gap at 0.1% and the largest at 1%.

What does this imply? The RTX 4070 SUPER is a mid-to-high tier consumer card, sitting at the 83rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are a mix of workstation cards and mobile parts, and the differences are small, within 1%. The MI325X, with a 50th percentile and zero score, cannot be placed on the same scale. The absence of data is itself informative: the MI325X is not built for the workloads these benchmarks measure. The RTX 4070 SUPER's FP32 throughput of 35.48 TFLOPS is less than half of the MI325X's 81.72 TFLOPS, but that throughput is unusable in graphics contexts because the MI325X has no graphics pipeline.

The data also shows the RTX 4070 SUPER's closest competitor is the RTX 4090 Mobile, which beats it by 1%. The Quadro M6000 cards trail by fractions of a percent. This clustering suggests the RTX 4070 SUPER is positioned in a dense performance band where small architectural differences decide rankings.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple division of labor. The AMD Instinct MI325X is for compute-heavy workloads that require massive memory capacity and bandwidth, with 256 GB of HBM3e and 6.14 TB/s of transfer speed. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no pixel rate, so it cannot serve as a rendering card. Its 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 throughput and 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate indicate raw number-crunching capability, but the database contains no benchmark results to confirm how that translates into real-world performance. The 1000 W TDP and OAM form factor further restrict it to data-center environments.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is the opposite: a consumer graphics card with 12 GB of GDDR6X, 56 RT cores, 224 tensor cores, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate support. Its recorded benchmarks place it at the 83rd percentile, with an average score of 43,223. It outscores its nearest rival, the Quadro M6000 24 GB, by only 0.1%, and trails the RTX 4090 Mobile by 1%. Its 220 W TDP and dual-slot design make it suitable for standard desktop systems.

Who should pick which? The data supports a clear answer. A user requiring graphics output, ray tracing, or standard gaming and rendering benchmarks should choose the RTX 4070 SUPER, as it is the only option with recorded graphics performance. A user requiring extreme memory capacity, 256 GB, or extreme bandwidth, 6.14 TB/s, with no need for display output, should choose the MI325X. The two products do not overlap in function, and the benchmark database treats them as separate categories. The MI325X's 50th percentile and zero score are not a judgment of quality but a reflection of its role as a compute accelerator outside the scope of conventional GPU benchmarks.