AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between these two cards: the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 scores 7006, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER scores 6269.5. That gives AMD an 11.7% lead in this specific workload. This is a substantial margin for a single benchmark, indicating that the R9700 has a clear advantage in modern DirectX 12 rendering tasks.

The overall benchmark picture is more complex. The AMD card has an average benchmark score of 23315 across ten recorded tests, while the NVIDIA card's average sits at 6270 from a single test entry. This discrepancy in available data makes direct average-to-average comparison unreliable. However, the head-to-head result is unambiguous: AMD wins the only shared test by double digits.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the AMD R9700 sits at the 69th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER ranks at the 36th percentile. These percentile figures reflect the broader benchmark database, not just the head-to-head test. The AMD card's higher percentile suggests it outperforms a larger proportion of the GPU population in the recorded metrics.

The AMD card's nearest rivals by average score are the AMD Radeon R9 M290X (23276, 0.2% behind), AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23273, 0.2% behind), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (23250, 0.3% behind), and NVIDIA P106-100 (23249, 0.3% behind). These are all extremely close scores, meaning the R9700's average benchmark performance lands in a tightly clustered group.

For the NVIDIA card, its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6270, 0.0% delta), NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282, -0.2%), AMD FirePro W600 (6223, 0.8%), and AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327, -0.9%). The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER sits almost exactly at the same level as the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 in average score, with only a negligible 0.0% delta.

The AMD card wins the head-to-head count 1 to 0, but that single result should be weighted carefully. The R9700's 11.7% margin in Steel Nomad is a strong indicator of its DirectX 12 performance ceiling, yet the NVIDIA card's limited test coverage means its full capabilities remain less charted in this database.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 scores 7006, beating the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER's 6269.5 by 11.7%.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD card averages 23315 across ten tests, while the NVIDIA card averages 6270 from a single recorded test. The R9700's average is significantly higher, though the NVIDIA card has far fewer data points.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 sits at the 69th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER sits at the 36th percentile.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR7 memory.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card in the database?

A: The AMD card's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M290X with a 0.2% score delta. The NVIDIA card's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 with a 0.0% delta.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER boosts to 2452 MHz, which is higher than the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700's 2920 MHz boost clock.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 uses the Navi 48 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 53,900 million transistors into a 357 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 151.0 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER uses the GB203 chip on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, also produced by TSMC but on a 5 nm process. It contains 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, resulting in a density of 120.6 million per mm². The AMD chip is smaller but denser, while the NVIDIA chip is larger with fewer transistors.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The AMD card has 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 64 ray tracing cores but no dedicated tensor cores. The NVIDIA card has 8960 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. It includes 70 RT cores and 280 tensor cores, giving it a notable advantage in AI-accelerated workloads. The shading unit count for NVIDIA is more than double AMD's, yet the AMD card still leads in FP32 throughput at 47.84 TFLOPS versus 43.94 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Memory architectures differ fundamentally. AMD uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 39% more bandwidth despite half the capacity. Clock behavior also contrasts: AMD's base clock is 1660 MHz with a 2920 MHz boost, while NVIDIA's base is 2295 MHz with a 2452 MHz boost. AMD's boost clock is substantially higher, but NVIDIA runs a higher base clock.

Display outputs are similar but not identical. Both cards offer 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort, but AMD uses DisplayPort 2.1a while NVIDIA uses DisplayPort 2.1b. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card lists a game clock of 2350 MHz, a feature NVIDIA's specifications do not include.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every major specification field. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 uses a 4 nm process, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER uses 5 nm. AMD packs 53,900 million transistors versus NVIDIA's 45,600 million. Die sizes are 357 mm² for AMD and 378 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor density favors AMD at 151.0M per mm² versus 120.6M per mm².

Memory capacity differs by 2x: 32 GB GDDR6 for AMD, 16 GB GDDR7 for NVIDIA. Both use a 256-bit bus, but bandwidth favors NVIDIA at 896.0 GB/s versus 644.6 GB/s. Clock speeds show AMD with a 1660 MHz base and 2920 MHz boost, while NVIDIA has 2295 MHz base and 2452 MHz boost. AMD also lists a 2350 MHz game clock; NVIDIA has no game clock field.

Shading units: 4096 for AMD, 8960 for NVIDIA. TMUs: 256 vs 280. ROPs: 128 vs 96. RT cores: 64 vs 70. Tensor cores: none for AMD, 280 for NVIDIA. Pixel rate: 373.8 GPixel/s for AMD versus 235.4 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate: 747.5 GTexel/s versus 686.6 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 both sit at 47.84 TFLOPS for AMD and 43.94 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, with 1:1 ratios on both.

Power draw differs by 50 W: 300 W for AMD, 350 W for NVIDIA. Both are dual-slot cards with a single 16-pin power connector. AMD suggests a 700 W PSU; NVIDIA lists no suggested PSU. Physical dimensions favor AMD: 267 mm length, 111 mm height, 40 mm width versus NVIDIA's 304 mm length, 137 mm height, 48 mm width. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs: AMD has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, NVIDIA has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. Release dates differ, with AMD listed as 2025-07-22 and NVIDIA as 2025-12-31. The launch MSRP for AMD is 1,299 USD and for NVIDIA is 749 USD.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear performance winner in the shared benchmark: the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 leads the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER by 11.7% in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The AMD card also holds a much higher percentile ranking (69th versus 36th) and a dramatically higher average benchmark score (23315 versus 6270). These metrics point to AMD having the stronger overall performance profile in the database.

However, the NVIDIA card counters with several specification advantages. It has more than double the shading units (8960 versus 4096), includes 280 tensor cores that AMD lacks entirely, and delivers 896.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 644.6 GB/s. Its GDDR7 memory operates at a higher effective speed (28 Gbps versus 20.1 Gbps). The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER also boosts from a higher base clock and lists a lower launch MSRP.

The AMD card wins on memory capacity (32 GB versus 16 GB), pixel rate (373.8 GPixel/s versus 235.4 GPixel/s), FP32 throughput (47.84 TFLOPS versus 43.94 TFLOPS), and transistor density. It draws 50 W less power, runs cooler in terms of TDP, and fits in a shorter physical footprint. Its RDNA 4.0 architecture on 4 nm delivers higher clock speeds and denser packing.

For buyers prioritizing raw DirectX 12 gaming performance, the data favors AMD. For workloads that leverage tensor cores, higher bandwidth, or lower entry cost, the NVIDIA card holds advantages. The single head-to-head test limits the breadth of conclusions, but the available evidence positions the R9700 as the faster card in the one directly comparable scenario.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 wins in DirectX 12 gaming performance, as demonstrated by its 11.7% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It also wins on memory capacity with 32 GB versus 16 GB, which matters for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-application workflows. Its pixel rate of 373.8 GPixel/s exceeds NVIDIA's 235.4 GPixel/s, indicating stronger rasterization throughput. The AMD card also holds advantages in FP32 compute (47.84 TFLOPS versus 43.94 TFLOPS), texture rate (747.5 GTexel/s versus 686.6 GTexel/s), and transistor density. Its lower 300 W TDP makes it more power-efficient per the recorded specifications. The higher percentile ranking (69th versus 36th) and higher average benchmark score (23315 versus 6270) reinforce its overall performance position.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER wins on memory bandwidth with 896.0 GB/s versus 644.6 GB/s, a 39% advantage that benefits bandwidth-bound tasks. Its 280 tensor cores provide dedicated AI acceleration hardware that AMD lacks entirely. The shading unit count of 8960 versus 4096 suggests advantages in parallel compute workloads that scale with shader count. The higher base clock of 2295 MHz versus 1660 MHz may offer better sustained performance in certain scenarios. The NVIDIA card also carries a lower launch MSRP of 749 USD versus 1,299 USD. Its GDDR7 memory operates at 28 Gbps effective versus 20.1 Gbps, and the card supports DisplayPort 2.1b versus AMD's 2.1a. The NVIDIA card's larger physical footprint (304 mm versus 267 mm length) may accommodate larger cooling solutions, though the data does not quantify thermal performance.