AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 are workstation GPUs from different eras, and the benchmark data reflects that divide. The R9700, built on modern RDNA 4.0, dominates in almost every head-to-head test, while the Quadro RTX 5000, based on older Turing architecture, holds a single significant lead in Vulkan compute. For most modern workloads, the R9700 is the clear choice. The RTX 5000 only makes sense if a specific application relies heavily on Vulkan performance, where it offers a substantial advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward recommendation for most buyers: choose the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700. It wins 8 out of 9 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and its average benchmark score of 23315 sits above its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M290X, by 0.2%. The R9700’s wins are not marginal; it leads by double-digit percentages in most tests, including a 72.8% advantage in Passmark G3D and a 134.5% lead in Passmark GPU Compute. This makes it the superior option for compute-heavy tasks, DirectX gaming, and general 3D rendering.

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is the pick only for a niche scenario. Its sole victory is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 92309 against the R9700’s 63550, a 31.2% difference. If your primary software stack is built on Vulkan and does not utilize other APIs, the RTX 5000’s performance in that specific area is unmatched by the R9700. However, this advantage comes with significant compromises elsewhere. Its average benchmark score of 21629 places it below the R9700, and its production status is end-of-life, whereas the R9700 is active. For anyone building a new system for broad professional use, the R9700’s overall performance and active production status make it the logical choice.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different foundations. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 uses the Navi 48 chip on the RDNA 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 uses the TU104 chip on the older Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. This process difference is stark: the R9700 packs 53,900 million transistors into a 357 mm² die, yielding a density of 151.0M / mm². The RTX 5000 has only 13,600 million transistors spread across a larger 545 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 25.0M / mm².

The compute resources also differ significantly. The R9700 features 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 64 ray tracing cores. The RTX 5000 has fewer of each: 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 48 ray tracing cores. However, the RTX 5000 includes 384 tensor cores, a feature the R9700 does not list. The R9700’s FP32 throughput is 47.84 TFLOPS, dwarfing the RTX 5000’s 11.15 TFLOPS. The R9700 also offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (47.84 TFLOPS), while the RTX 5000 achieves 22.30 TFLOPS FP16 via a 2:1 ratio. The R9700 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the RTX 5000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the R9700 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, while the RTX 5000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a pattern of overwhelming AMD superiority, with one notable exception. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9700 scores 118202 against the RTX 5000’s 78999, a 49.6% advantage. This suggests a massive lead in general-purpose compute workloads that utilize OpenCL. The R9700’s lead extends to all Passmark tests. In Passmark DirectX 11, the R9700 scores 272 versus 140, a 94.3% margin. The Passmark DirectX 9 test shows a similar gap, with the R9700 at 363 and the RTX 5000 at 195, an 86.2% difference. Even in the older Passmark DirectX 10 test, the R9700 wins with 155 against 113, a 37.2% lead.

The most striking results are in the higher-level benchmarks. In Passmark G3D, the R9700 achieves 26979 points, beating the RTX 5000’s 15616 by 72.8%. The gap widens further in Passmark GPU Compute, where the R9700 scores 15300 and the RTX 5000 scores only 6525, giving the AMD card a 134.5% lead. Even in Passmark G2D, a test of 2D graphics performance, the R9700 wins with 1236 against 709, a 74.3% margin. The lone NVIDIA victory is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX 5000 scores 92309 against the R9700’s 63550, a 31.2% difference. This single result indicates that the RTX 5000’s Turing architecture has a specific strength in Vulkan compute that the RDNA 4.0 card does not match.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has an average benchmark score of 23315, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 scores 21629. The R9700’s score places it at the 69th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the RTX 5000’s 67th percentile.

Q: Is the AMD card faster in DirectX 12 workloads?

A: Yes. In the Passmark DirectX 12 test, the R9700 scores 83, while the RTX 5000 scores 59. This represents a 40.7% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Where does the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 outperform the AMD card?

A: The RTX 5000 wins only in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 92309 against the R9700’s 63550. This is a 31.2% difference in NVIDIA’s favor, making it the better choice for Vulkan-centric applications.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The R9700 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card has twice the capacity and significantly more bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in their production status?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is listed as "Active" in production, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is "End-of-life". This suggests the R9700 is the more future-proof option for new system builds.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has a boost clock of 2920 MHz, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 has a boost clock of 1815 MHz. The R9700’s base clock of 1660 MHz is also higher than the RTX 5000’s 1620 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 wins in: General compute and rendering. Its leads in Geekbench OpenCL (49.6%), Passmark G3D (72.8%), and Passmark GPU Compute (134.5%) make it the clear winner for tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific simulations. Its DirectX performance is also superior across all versions, with margins ranging from 37.2% in DirectX 10 to 94.3% in DirectX 11. This makes it the better card for any DirectX-based game or application. The R9700 also wins in 2D performance (Passmark G2D, 74.3% lead) and offers double the VRAM (32 GB vs 16 GB) and higher bandwidth (644.6 GB/s vs 448.0 GB/s), which is beneficial for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins in: Vulkan compute workloads. The RTX 5000’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 92309 is 31.2% higher than the R9700’s 63550. This is its only benchmark win, but it is a substantial one. If you are using software that relies on the Vulkan API for compute or rendering, the RTX 5000 may provide a smoother experience despite its older architecture. The presence of 384 tensor cores also gives it a hardware feature that the R9700 does not have, which could be relevant for specific machine learning or AI inference tasks that utilize Tensor Core acceleration, though no benchmark data is provided to quantify this advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 53,900 million | 13,600 million |

| Die Size | 357 mm² | 545 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 151.0M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1660 MHz | 1620 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2920 MHz | 1815 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 644.6 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 256 | 192 |

| ROPs | 128 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 64 | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | N/A | 384 |

| FP32 Performance | 47.84 TFLOPS | 11.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 47.84 TFLOPS (1:1) | 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 230 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2025-07-22 | 2018-08-12 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,299 USD | 2,299 USD |