AMD Instinct MI350X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded database separates these two accelerators into entirely different performance domains. The AMD Instinct MI350X has no benchmark entries, so its competitive position cannot be expressed through the same scoring framework used for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti. The absence of benchmark data for the MI350X means the database assigns it a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 0. The RTX 5070 Ti, by contrast, holds a percentile rank of 86 and an average benchmark score of 49957, placing it well above the midpoint of the database distribution.

The RTX 5070 Ti wins outright across every recorded test simply because those tests exist for it. Its strongest single result comes from Geekbench Vulkan at 225122, followed by Geekbench OpenCL at 212363. The Passmark G3D suite returns 32974, while Passmark GPU Compute scores 20203. The remaining Passmark tests cover older DirectX paths: DirectX 9 at 351, DirectX 11 at 300, DirectX 10 at 192, and DirectX 12 at 127. The 2D test shows 1332. 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 records 6604.

The MI350X, however, claims wins in raw hardware capacity that the benchmark suite does not measure. Its FP32 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS exceeds the RTX 5070 Ti's 43.94 TFLOPS by a wide margin. Memory capacity separates the two decisively: 288 GB of HBM3e versus 16 GB of GDDR7. Memory bandwidth tells a similar story, with 8.19 TB/s against 896.0 GB/s. These are not benchmark scores but architectural facts, and they define where each product operates.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X uses the MI350 256CU chip built on CDNA 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The RTX 5070 Ti uses the GB203 chip on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 5 nm process. The transistor counts differ enormously: 185,000 million for the MI350X versus 45,600 million for the RTX 5070 Ti. Die size follows the same pattern, with the MI350X at 2380 mm² and the RTX 5070 Ti at 378 mm². Transistor density inverts the comparison, with the RTX 5070 Ti packing 120.6M transistors per mm² against the MI350X's 77.7M per mm².

Clock speeds show the RTX 5070 Ti running significantly faster. Its base clock is 2295 MHz with a boost of 2452 MHz, while the MI350X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the MI350X uses 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the RTX 5070 Ti uses 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective. The memory type separates them fundamentally, HBM3e for the MI350X and GDDR7 for the RTX 5070 Ti.

The compute resources scale differently. The MI350X carries 16384 shading units and 1024 texture mapping units, producing a texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s. The RTX 5070 Ti has 8960 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with a texture rate of 686.6 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 235.4 GPixel/s. The MI350X lists zero ROPs and zero pixel rate, reflecting its non-rendering design focus. The RTX 5070 Ti includes 70 ray tracing cores and 280 tensor cores; the MI350X lists neither.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The MI350X draws a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W, mounted as an OAM Module with no power connectors and no display outputs. The RTX 5070 Ti draws 300 W with a 700 W suggested PSU, fits a dual-slot form factor, uses a single 16-pin connector, and provides 1x HDMI 2.1b plus 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The MI350X measures 102 mm by 165 mm, while the RTX 5070 Ti measures 304 mm by 137 mm by 48 mm.

API support separates the two as well. The RTX 5070 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming its compute-focused role rather than a graphics-oriented one.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct comparison is limited by the database structure. The MI350X has no recorded benchmark entries, so the head-to-head table is empty and neither side registers a win count. The RTX 5070 Ti nevertheless provides a full benchmark profile that can be weighed against its nearest rivals, which offers context for its performance tier.

The RTX 5070 Ti's average benchmark score of 49957 sits almost exactly level with the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, which scores 50001, a delta of -0.1 percent. The Intel Arc A550M trails by 0.4 percent with 49737. The AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT leads by 2 percent at 50951, while the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT sits 3.1 percent behind at 48477. These deltas place the RTX 5070 Ti in a tight cluster around the 50,000 score mark, with no rival more than roughly 2 percent ahead or 3.1 percent behind.

Looking at specific test results, the RTX 5070 Ti's Geekbench Vulkan score of 225122 and OpenCL score of 212363 indicate strong compute performance in cross-platform APIs. The Passmark G3D score of 32974 and GPU Compute score of 20203 show a more moderate standing relative to the same rival group, though the database does not provide rival scores for individual tests. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 6604 reflects current-generation DirectX 12 rendering load, while the legacy DirectX 9 and DirectX 11 Passmark scores of 351 and 300 suggest diminishing returns on older API paths.

The MI350X's FP32 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS and FP16 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio position it far above the RTX 5070 Ti's 43.94 TFLOPS in both precisions. Memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s against 896.0 GB/s represents a factor of roughly nine in favor of the MI350X. These figures do not translate into benchmark wins in the database, but they define the compute ceiling each product can reach.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350X have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The MI350X lists no benchmark entries, resulting in an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs.

Q: How does the RTX 5070 Ti compare to its closest rivals in average score?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti averages 49957. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scores 50001, a 0.1 percent difference. The Intel Arc A550M scores 49737, a 0.4 percent gap. The AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT scores 50951, 2 percent higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT scores 48477, 3.1 percent lower.

Q: What memory configurations do the two products use?

A: The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5070 Ti uses 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus with 896.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which product has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS in FP32, compared to 43.94 TFLOPS for the RTX 5070 Ti. Both products list FP16 at the same rate as FP32 with a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RTX 5070 Ti has a TDP of 300 W and a suggested PSU of 700 W.

Q: Does the MI350X support display output?

A: No. The MI350X lists no display outputs, while the RTX 5070 Ti provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs.

The Verdict

The data presents two products with almost no overlap in intended use. The RTX 5070 Ti carries the full benchmark load in the database, with a percentile rank of 86 and an average score of 49957 that places it within about 2 percent of the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT and within 3.1 percent above the RX 6800 XT. Its benchmark profile spans DirectX 9 through 12, Vulkan, OpenCL, and compute workloads, and its feature set includes ray tracing cores, tensor cores, display outputs, and full graphics API support. The launch MSRP of 749 USD applies to this product.

The MI350X, with no benchmark scores and a 50th percentile rank, cannot be evaluated through the same scoring lens. Its architectural specifications instead define its position: 288 GB of HBM3e, 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, 72.09 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, 16384 shading units, and a 1000 W TDP. It omits ROPs, display outputs, and graphics APIs entirely, confirming a purpose built for memory-bound compute rather than rendering.

For workloads measured by the database, the RTX 5070 Ti is the only option with recorded results, and those results cluster tightly with established mid-range-to-high-end graphics cards. For workloads that demand extreme memory capacity and raw FP32 throughput, the MI350X's specifications place it in a different category altogether, one where the database currently has no measurements to compare. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the task requires graphics output and benchmark-validated rendering performance or maximum memory and compute density.