AMD Instinct MI350X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI350X and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and neither product records any wins in direct comparison. This absence of overlap is expected given their fundamentally different roles: the Instinct MI350X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is a consumer graphics card with a full suite of DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support.

For the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, the recorded data provides a clear performance profile. Its average benchmark score is 31,087, placing it in the 76th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its strongest result comes from Geekbench OpenCL at 199,267 points, while 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 returns 5,569 points. PassMark GPU Compute shows 18,372 points, and PassMark G3D reaches 31,811. The nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA products: the Quadro M5000 scores 31,206 (0.4% behind), the GRID M60-1Q scores 31,220 (0.4% behind), the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell scores 31,532 (1.4% ahead), and the TITAN RTX scores 31,676 (1.9% ahead). The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits essentially at parity with these workstation cards, within a narrow band of roughly 2% either direction.

The Instinct MI350X has no benchmark entries in the database. Its percentile rank of 50 is a placeholder derived from an average score of zero, which reflects the absence of recorded measurements rather than a meaningful performance comparison. Consequently, no direct numeric comparison between the two accelerators is possible from the available data. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's scores stand alone, and any attempt to infer relative performance would require speculation beyond the facts.

Architecture Differences

The two chips diverge sharply in every architectural dimension. The AMD Instinct MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses Ada Lovelace on a 5 nm TSMC process. The MI350X packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2,380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million per mm². The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER contains 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, with a higher density of 121.1 million per mm². The MI350X is physically enormous, over six times the die area of the NVIDIA chip, yet the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER achieves greater packing efficiency.

Memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The MI350X carries 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8,192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, providing 672.3 GB/s. The AMD accelerator holds 18 times more memory and delivers over 12 times the bandwidth. Memory clocks also diverge: the MI350X runs at 2,000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER runs at 1,313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective. The HBM3e interface uses a vastly wider bus to achieve its throughput advantage.

Compute resources show similar asymmetry. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and no ROPs. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 8,448 shading units, 264 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The AMD chip doubles the shader count and nearly quadruples TMUs, but it has zero pixel output capability. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's pixel rate is 250.6 GPixel/s, while the MI350X records 0 MPixel/s, confirming the AMD part is not designed for rasterization. Texture rates follow the compute orientation: 2,252.8 GTexel/s for the MI350X versus 689.0 GTexel/s for the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER.

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA. The MI350X runs at a 1,000 MHz base and 2,200 MHz boost, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER runs at 2,340 MHz base and 2,610 MHz boost. Despite the AMD part's higher raw throughput per clock, the NVIDIA part operates at substantially higher frequencies. Floating-point output reflects the architectural intent: the MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER delivers 44.10 TFLOPS in both. The MI350X also includes 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores on the NVIDIA side, while the AMD part lists no RT or tensor core counts in the database.

The MI350X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Power consumption differs massively: the MI350X has a 1,000 W TDP with a suggested 1,400 W PSU, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a 285 W TDP with a suggested 600 W PSU. The MI350X is an OAM module with no power connectors and no display outputs. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is a triple-slot card with a single 16-pin connector and outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The MI350X measures 102 mm by 165 mm, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER measures 310 mm by 140 mm by 61 mm.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER wins in any scenario requiring display output, rasterization, or consumer API support. Its 96 ROPs and 250.6 GPixel/s pixel rate enable traditional graphics rendering, while its DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support make it compatible with gaming and workstation applications. The MI350X has no ROPs, no display outputs, and lists N/A for all graphics APIs. For gaming, content creation, or any visual output, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the only functional option in this pair.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER also wins on clock speed and efficiency per watt. Its 2,610 MHz boost clock is significantly higher than the MI350X's 2,200 MHz, and its 285 W TDP is far below the MI350X's 1,000 W. The NVIDIA card's smaller die (379 mm² versus 2,380 mm²) and higher transistor density (121.1M/mm² versus 77.7M/mm²) indicate a more efficient design for its intended workload. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's 16 GB GDDR6X memory is ample for consumer tasks, and its PCIe 4.0 interface is sufficient for typical systems.

The MI350X wins decisively on compute throughput and memory capacity. Its 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 output exceeds the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's 44.10 TFLOPS by roughly 63%. FP16 performance also favors the AMD part at 72.09 TFLOPS versus 44.10 TFLOPS. The 288 GB HBM3e memory dwarfs the 16 GB GDDR6X, and the 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is unmatched. The 8,192-bit bus width enables data movement at scales far beyond consumer needs. The MI350X's 1,024 TMUs support high texture throughput (2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 689.0 GTexel/s), which matters in compute-heavy workloads.

The MI350X also wins on process node, using 3 nm versus 5 nm, and on interface generation at PCIe 5.0 versus PCIe 4.0. Its 185,000 million transistors represent a 4x advantage over the NVIDIA part, though this comes at the cost of a much larger die. The MI350X's base clock of 1,000 MHz is lower, but its boost clock of 2,200 MHz still trails the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's 2,610 MHz. The AMD part's release date of June 2025 also makes it a newer design than the January 2024 RTX 4070 Ti SUPER.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two products cleanly by intended use case. The AMD Instinct MI350X is a data-center compute accelerator: it has no display outputs, no graphics APIs, no ROPs, and a 1,000 W TDP. Its 288 GB HBM3e memory, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, and 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 performance target large-scale computation, AI training, and scientific workloads. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is a consumer graphics card: it has 96 ROPs, 250.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and display outputs for HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4a. Its 44.10 TFLOPS FP32 and 16 GB memory serve gaming and workstation graphics.

There is no overlap in their benchmark results, so the verdict rests on architectural fitness. For any task involving visual output, rasterization, or consumer software compatibility, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the only viable choice. Its 31,087 average benchmark score and 76th percentile ranking demonstrate solid performance among all GPUs. For compute-only environments, the MI350X's raw specifications indicate vastly superior capacity, but the database contains no measurements to confirm actual performance. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is end-of-life with a successor in the GeForce 50 series, while the MI350X has no recorded successor.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's nearest rivals are all NVIDIA workstation cards within 2% of its average score, which shows it sits at a performance plateau among similar products. The MI350X has no rivals listed, meaning the database has no comparable accelerators to contextualize its specifications. The launch MSRP of the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is 799 USD, while the MI350X has no recorded launch price. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload requires graphics output or pure compute density.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more FP32 compute power?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER delivers 44.10 TFLOPS. The AMD part holds a roughly 63% advantage in raw single-precision throughput.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI350X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI350X has no display outputs and records 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. It also lists no ROPs, making it unsuitable for any rasterized graphics output.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8,192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 672.3 GB/s bandwidth.

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

A: Its average benchmark score of 31,087 is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 (31,206) and GRID M60-1Q (31,220), 1.4% behind the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (31,532), and 1.9% behind the TITAN RTX (31,676).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI350X has a 1,000 W TDP with a suggested 1,400 W PSU. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a 285 W TDP with a suggested 600 W PSU. The NVIDIA card draws significantly less power.

Q: Which GPU supports more graphics APIs?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI350X | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 185,000 million | 45,900 million |

| Die size | 2,380 mm² | 379 mm² |

| Transistor density | 77.7M / mm² | 121.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1,000 MHz | 2,340 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2,200 MHz | 2,610 MHz |

| Memory size | 288 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3e | GDDR6X |

| Memory bus width | 8,192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 672.3 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 2,000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective | 1,313 MHz, 21 Gbps effective |

| Shading units | 16,384 | 8,448 |

| TMUs | 1,024 | 264 |

| ROPs | 0 | 96 |

| RT cores | Not listed | 66 |

| Tensor cores | Not listed | 264 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 250.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 2,252.8 GTexel/s | 689.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 72.09 TFLOPS | 44.10 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) | 44.10 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1,000 W | 285 W |

| Slot width | OAM Module | Triple-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1,400 W | 600 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 | 102 mm x 165 mm | 310 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm |

| Release date | 2025-06-11 | 2024-01-23 |

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

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | GeForce 30 |

| Successor | Not listed | GeForce 50 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 799 USD |

| Average benchmark score | 0 | 31,087 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 50 | 76 |

| Nearest rivals | None listed | Quadro M5000 (-0.4%), GRID M60-1Q (-0.4%), RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (-1.4%), TITAN RTX (-1.9%) |