AMD Instinct MI350X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single benchmark result for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2690. The AMD Instinct MI350X has no benchmark entries in the database, so no direct head-to-head comparison is possible from the available measurements. The RTX 5070 SUPER’s score places it at the 18th percentile among all GPUs, with its nearest rivals being the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M (2664, 1% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 (2662, 1.1% slower), the Intel Arc Pro B50 (2660, 1.1% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 (2645, 1.7% slower). This indicates the RTX 5070 SUPER delivers a modest but clear advantage over those older or lower-tier cards, exceeding the Quadro K1100M by roughly 1% and the GT 440 by about 1.7% in this specific workload.

The MI350X, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of 0. That means the database holds no evidence of its rasterization performance in standard gaming or workstation tests. The two products therefore cannot be ranked against one another through direct measurement. The only numerical comparison available comes from their architectural specifications, which show the MI350X with a theoretical FP32 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS versus 32.15 TFLOPS for the RTX 5070 SUPER, more than double the compute output. Texture rate also favors the MI350X heavily: 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 502.4 GTexel/s. However, the RTX 5070 SUPER has a pixel rate of 201.0 GPixel/s while the MI350X is listed at 0 MPixel/s, reflecting its lack of traditional raster output units.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies. The AMD Instinct MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, with the MI350 256CU chip containing 185,000 million transistors on a die size of 2380 mm². Transistor density is 77.7M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with the GB205 chip containing 31,100 million transistors on a die size of 263 mm², yielding a higher density of 118.3M per mm². The MI350X is a compute-oriented accelerator with 16,384 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units, but it lists zero ROPs, no RT cores, no tensor cores, and no display outputs. Its memory subsystem is built around 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5070 SUPER is a consumer graphics card with 6,400 shading units, 200 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 50 RT cores, and 200 tensor cores. It uses 18 GB of GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus for 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Clock behavior also differs substantially. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, with memory clocked at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The RTX 5070 SUPER runs at a 2325 MHz base and 2512 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The MI350X draws a 1000 W TDP and comes as an OAM module with no power connectors listed, while the RTX 5070 SUPER has a 275 W TDP, is dual-slot, and uses a single 16-pin power connector. The MI350X supports PCIe 5.0 x16 but offers no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, all listed as N/A. The RTX 5070 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Physical dimensions differ as well: the MI350X measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width, while the RTX 5070 SUPER is 245 mm long, 115 mm tall, and 40 mm wide.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear functional separation. The MI350X is designed for compute workloads where raw FP32 and FP16 throughput, memory capacity, and bandwidth dominate. Its 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 figure, 288 GB memory, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth are far beyond what the RTX 5070 SUPER offers. The RTX 5070 SUPER, with its 32.15 TFLOPS, 18 GB memory, and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth, is a conventional graphics card with display outputs, RT cores, tensor cores, and full graphics API support. The MI350X has no display outputs and no graphics API support, making it unsuitable for direct rendering or gaming. The RTX 5070 SUPER has a recorded benchmark score of 2690 and an active production status, while the MI350X has no benchmarks and no production status listed.

For any workload requiring graphics output, standard gaming, or DirectX/OpenGL/Vulkan applications, the RTX 5070 SUPER is the only viable choice from the recorded data. For server-side compute, AI training, or large-memory data processing where display output is unnecessary, the MI350X offers substantially higher compute and memory resources. The RTX 5070 SUPER’s nearest rivals in the database are all older or entry-level cards, and it beats each by 1% to 1.7% in the Steel Nomad test, confirming its position as a moderate performer among contemporary GPUs rather than a top-tier one. The MI350X’s 50th percentile ranking, despite having no benchmark scores, suggests the database treats it as a middle-of-the-pack product by default, but its architectural numbers indicate a different class of device entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X lists 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER lists 32.15 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: What is the memory capacity and type for each card?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, while the RTX 5070 SUPER has 18 GB of GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Does the MI350X support display outputs?

A: No, the MI350X lists no display outputs, whereas the RTX 5070 SUPER has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b.

Q: What is the RTX 5070 SUPER’s benchmark score?

A: Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2690, which places it at the 18th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, compared to 6,400 for the RTX 5070 SUPER.

Q: What are the TDP values?

A: The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP, while the RTX 5070 SUPER has a 275 W TDP.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350X wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 and FP16 figures are both 72.09 TFLOPS, more than double the RTX 5070 SUPER’s 32.15 TFLOPS. Texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 502.4 GTexel/s, a 4.5x advantage. Memory bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 672.0 GB/s, a difference of over 12x. Memory capacity is 288 GB versus 18 GB, a 16x difference. The MI350X also has a much larger die (2380 mm² vs 263 mm²) and more transistors (185,000 million vs 31,100 million). Its 3 nm process node is smaller than the RTX 5070 SUPER’s 5 nm node, although the RTX 5070 SUPER achieves a higher transistor density (118.3M per mm² vs 77.7M per mm²). The MI350X’s 8192-bit memory bus dwarfs the 192-bit bus of the RTX 5070 SUPER.

The RTX 5070 SUPER wins in every area tied to graphics rendering and consumer usability. It has 80 ROPs while the MI350X has 0, giving it a pixel rate of 201.0 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s. It includes 50 RT cores and 200 tensor cores, features the MI350X lacks entirely. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI350X lists N/A for all three. It provides display outputs, the MI350X provides none. Its base clock of 2325 MHz and boost clock of 2512 MHz are higher than the MI350X’s 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. Its memory runs at a higher effective speed of 28 Gbps versus 8 Gbps, and its 275 W TDP is far lower than 1000 W. It is also the only one of the two with a recorded benchmark score and an active production status.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI350X | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 185,000 million | 31,100 million |

| Die size | 2380 mm² | 263 mm² |

| Transistor density | 77.7M / mm² | 118.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 2325 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2200 MHz | 2512 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 288 GB | 18 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3e | GDDR7 |

| Memory bus width | 8192 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 16384 | 6400 |

| TMUs | 1024 | 200 |

| ROPs | 0 | 80 |

| RT cores | None listed | 50 |

| Tensor cores | None listed | 200 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 201.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 2,252.8 GTexel/s | 502.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 72.09 TFLOPS | 32.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) | 32.15 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 275 W |

| Slot width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

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

| Display outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Length | 102 mm | 245 mm |

| Width | 165 mm | 40 mm |

| Height | Not listed | 115 mm |

| Production status | Not listed | Active |

| Release date | 2025-06-11 | 2025-12-31 |

| Benchmark score | None recorded | 2690 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 50 | 18 |