AMD Instinct MI350P vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI350P and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER. The MI350P has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of zero, and sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. The RTX 4070 SUPER, by contrast, has ten recorded benchmark entries, an average score of 43,223, and ranks at the 83rd percentile.

Because the MI350P lacks any benchmark data, the comparison must rely on architectural specifications and the RTX 4070 SUPER's measured performance relative to its nearest rivals. The RTX 4070 SUPER's closest competitors in the database are the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB, with an average score of 43,262 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile at 43,268 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 at 43,301 (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile at 43,667 (1% ahead). These deltas show the RTX 4070 SUPER's measured performance is tightly clustered with those cards, within roughly one percent in either direction.

The RTX 4070 SUPER's individual benchmark scores reveal its strengths across different workloads. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 205,624, while in Geekbench OpenCL it scores 172,795, a gap of roughly 19% in favor of Vulkan. PassMark GPU Compute shows 17,108, and PassMark G3D shows 29,995. The DirectX 9 score of 344 exceeds the DirectX 11 score of 273 and the DirectX 10 score of 167, while DirectX 12 scores only 110. The 2D graphics test records 1,184. These numbers indicate the RTX 4070 SUPER delivers its highest relative performance in Vulkan and modern compute workloads, with lower scores in legacy DirectX tests.

The MI350P's specification sheet indicates it is designed for a different role entirely. With 8,192 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, it has no pixel output capability. Its pixel rate is listed as 0 MPixel/s, confirming it is not built for rasterized graphics rendering. The RTX 4070 SUPER, conversely, has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and a pixel rate of 198.0 GPixel/s, making it a complete graphics processor. The MI350P's FP32 compute of 36.04 TFLOPS is nearly identical to the RTX 4070 SUPER's 35.48 TFLOPS, a difference of only 1.6% in the AMD card's favor. FP16 performance is also 1:1 in both, at 36.04 and 35.48 TFLOPS respectively.

The texture rate tells a different story. The MI350P delivers 1,126.4 GTexel/s, while the RTX 4070 SUPER delivers 554.4 GTexel/s, meaning the AMD card has roughly double the texture throughput. That advantage stems from the MI350P's 512 TMUs versus the RTX 4070 SUPER's 224. Memory bandwidth is even more lopsided. The MI350P has 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth across an 8192-bit bus with 144 GB of HBM3e memory, while the RTX 4070 SUPER has 504.2 GB/s across a 192-bit bus with 12 GB of GDDR6X. The MI350P's bandwidth is over 16 times higher. These are not comparable products in the conventional sense, and the absence of head-to-head benchmarks reflects that reality.

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates the MI350P wins decisively in raw compute throughput and memory capacity. Its FP32 and FP16 scores of 36.04 TFLOPS slightly exceed the RTX 4070 SUPER's 35.48 TFLOPS, but its texture rate of 1,126.4 GTexel/s is double the NVIDIA card's 554.4 GTexel/s. The 144 GB memory capacity dwarfs the RTX 4070 SUPER's 12 GB, and the 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is in a different class entirely. These specifications point to workloads where large datasets must stay resident on the GPU and where memory bandwidth limits performance, such as large-scale matrix operations or inference tasks with massive model weights.

The RTX 4070 SUPER wins in every area related to graphics output and consumer-facing features. It has 80 ROPs and a pixel rate of 198.0 GPixel/s, while the MI350P has zero ROPs and zero pixel output. The RTX 4070 SUPER includes 56 ray tracing cores and 224 tensor cores, features absent from the MI350P's specification list. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI350P lists N/A for all three APIs. The RTX 4070 SUPER has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the MI350P has no outputs. The RTX 4070 SUPER also has a production status of end-of-life, indicating it has a defined consumer lifecycle, whereas the MI350P's production status is unlisted.

The power envelope favors the RTX 4070 SUPER as well. It carries a 220 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested power supply, while the MI350P draws 600 W and needs a 1000 W PSU. The RTX 4070 SUPER is also denser in transistor packing, at 121.8M transistors per mm² versus the MI350P's 61.3M per mm², though the MI350P uses a more advanced 3 nm process versus the RTX 4070 SUPER's 5 nm node. Both cards use TSMC as the foundry and both are dual-slot designs with a 1x 16-pin power connector. Physical dimensions are nearly identical, with both measuring 267 mm in length, the RTX 4070 SUPER at 112 mm height versus the MI350P's 111 mm, and the RTX 4070 SUPER at 42 mm width versus the MI350P's 40 mm.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two products with overlapping compute figures but entirely different purposes. The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16, which is 1.6% higher than the RTX 4070 SUPER's 35.48 TFLOPS, but that near-parity in raw FP32 does not translate into comparable graphics capability. The MI350P has zero ROPs, zero pixel rate, no display outputs, and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. It cannot render frames to a screen, and its benchmark score of zero with no recorded tests confirms it is not evaluated through consumer graphics workloads.

The RTX 4070 SUPER, with its 83rd percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 43,223, is a fully functional graphics card. Its measured scores show strong Vulkan performance at 205,624 and OpenCL at 172,795, with PassMark G3D at 29,995 and GPU Compute at 17,108. Its nearest rivals are within one percent, placing it in a competitive tier with the Quadro M6000 variants and the RTX 4090 Mobile. The MI350P's 50th percentile ranking reflects an absence of data rather than measured performance, making direct comparison impossible.

For a user seeking a graphics card for gaming, rendering, or any display-based workload, the RTX 4070 SUPER is the only viable option from this data. It has the ROPs, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, API support, and display outputs required for those tasks. For a user seeking maximum memory bandwidth and capacity for non-graphics compute, the MI350P's 144 GB HBM3e and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, combined with its double texture rate, indicate it is built for server or data-center workloads where the RTX 4070 SUPER's 12 GB and 504.2 GB/s would be a bottleneck. The RTX 4070 SUPER also has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which the database records, but no such figure exists for the MI350P.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350P have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The MI350P has an empty benchmarks list, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals recorded.

Q: How does the MI350P's FP32 performance compare to the RTX 4070 SUPER?

A: The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS, which is 1.6% higher than the RTX 4070 SUPER's 35.48 TFLOPS. Both have 1:1 FP16 performance at the same figures.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4070 SUPER uses 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can the MI350P output video to a display?

A: No. The MI350P has no display outputs, a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, zero ROPs, and lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support. The RTX 4070 SUPER has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What is the RTX 4070 SUPER's performance ranking relative to all GPUs?

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER sits at the 83rd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 43,223. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB, scores 43,262, which is 0.1% behind.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER has a transistor density of 121.8M per mm² on a 294 mm² die with 35,800 million transistors. The MI350P has 61.3M per mm² on a 1190 mm² die with 73,000 million transistors.

Architecture Differences

The MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process with the MI350 128CU chip. It belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation and has a predecessor listed as Radeon Instinct. The RTX 4070 SUPER uses the Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process with the AD104 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 40 series with a predecessor of GeForce 30. The MI350P's die is 1190 mm² with 73,000 million transistors, while the RTX 4070 SUPER's die is 294 mm² with 35,800 million transistors. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

The MI350P has 8,192 shading units and 512 TMUs but zero ROPs. It has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The RTX 4070 SUPER has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 ray tracing cores, and 224 tensor cores. The MI350P's texture rate of 1,126.4 GTexel/s comes from its higher TMU count, while its pixel rate is zero. The RTX 4070 SUPER's pixel rate is 198.0 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 554.4 GTexel/s.

The MI350P's memory subsystem uses HBM3e with a 2000 MHz memory clock and 8 Gbps effective speed, while the RTX 4070 SUPER uses GDDR6X with a 1313 MHz memory clock and 21 Gbps effective speed. The MI350P's bus width is 8192 bits versus 192 bits, and its bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 504.2 GB/s. The MI350P has no API support, while the RTX 4070 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350P uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX 4070 SUPER uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds differ substantially. The MI350P has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the RTX 4070 SUPER has a base clock of 1980 MHz and a boost clock of 2475 MHz. The RTX 4070 SUPER's base clock is nearly double the MI350P's, and its boost clock is 275 MHz higher. Memory clocks also differ: the MI350P runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the RTX 4070 SUPER runs at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective.

Power requirements diverge sharply. The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W and a suggested PSU of 1000 W, while the RTX 4070 SUPER has a TDP of 220 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. Both use a single 16-pin power connector. The transistor counts differ by a factor of roughly two: 73,000 million for the MI350P versus 35,800 million for the RTX 4070 SUPER. Die size is 1190 mm² versus 294 mm², and transistor density is 61.3M per mm² versus 121.8M per mm².

Memory capacity and type are starkly different: 144 GB HBM3e versus 12 GB GDDR6X. Bus width is 8192 bits versus 192 bits, and bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 504.2 GB/s. The MI350P has no display outputs, while the RTX 4070 SUPER has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The MI350P's release date is recorded as May 6, 2026, while the RTX 4070 SUPER's release date is January 16, 2024. The RTX 4070 SUPER has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the MI350P has none recorded. The RTX 4070 SUPER is marked end-of-life and has a successor in GeForce 50; the MI350P has no production status and no successor. Physical dimensions are nearly identical, with both cards at 267 mm length, the MI350P at 111 mm height and 40 mm width, and the RTX 4070 SUPER at 112 mm height and 42 mm width.