AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 and NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile occupy different corners of the professional GPU market, separated by process node, power envelope, and intended use case. The data shows a decisive overall victory for the AMD part in raw throughput, but the NVIDIA card retains a specific advantage in one API workload that matters for certain workflows.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark suite delivers a lopsided result: AMD wins 8 of 9 head-to-head comparisons. The most dramatic gap appears in Passmark GPU Compute, where the R9700 scores 15,300 against 6,394 for the A4000 Mobile — a 139.3% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and signals a massive difference in general-purpose compute throughput, likely stemming from the AMD card’s higher FP32 rate and memory bandwidth.

DirectX 9 and DirectX 11 results follow the same pattern. In Passmark DirectX 9, the R9700 posts 363 versus 157, a 131.2% lead. DirectX 11 shows 272 versus 127, which translates to a 114.2% advantage. These legacy API tests favor the AMD architecture heavily, suggesting that older workloads or compatibility modes run substantially better on the RDNA 4 part.

The 2D and 3D marks reinforce the trend. Passmark G2D has the R9700 at 1,236 versus 585 — a 111.3% win. Passmark G3D shows 26,979 versus 14,796, an 82.3% lead. Even DirectX 12, where modern architectures typically shine, goes to AMD by a 25.8% margin (83 versus 66). DirectX 10 is closer but still favors AMD: 155 versus 105, a 47.6% difference.

Geekbench OpenCL adds another data point for AMD: 118,202 versus 97,178, a 21.6% advantage. That is a solid win but notably smaller than the Passmark compute gap, suggesting the OpenCL test is less sensitive to the underlying hardware differences.

The one NVIDIA victory is in Geekbench Vulkan. The A4000 Mobile scores 73,002 against the R9700’s 63,550, a 12.9% margin. This is the only test where the NVIDIA card leads, and it is a meaningful one for Vulkan-based applications. The result is curious given the AMD card’s overwhelming wins elsewhere, but it points to a specific optimization or driver advantage in the Vulkan path for the Ampere architecture.

Overall average benchmark scores reflect the same hierarchy: the R9700 averages 23,315 across all tests, while the A4000 Mobile averages 21,379. The percentile rankings are closer — 69th versus 66th among all GPUs — indicating that both sit in a similar tier of overall performance, even if the head-to-head deltas are large in specific tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design generations. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 uses the Navi 48 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 4 nm process. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip on the older Ampere architecture, built on Samsung’s 8 nm node. That process gap explains much of the efficiency and density difference: the AMD die packs 53,900 million transistors into 357 mm², yielding a density of 151.0 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA chip has 17,400 million transistors spread over 392 mm², for a density of just 44.4M / mm².

Clock speeds reflect the process advantage. The R9700 runs a base clock of 1660 MHz, a game clock of 2350 MHz, and boosts to 2920 MHz. The A4000 Mobile operates at 1140 MHz base and 1680 MHz boost, with no game clock listed. Memory clocks also differ: the R9700 uses 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective) while the A4000 Mobile runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Core configurations diverge significantly. The AMD card has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs, with 64 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA card has more shading units (5,120) but fewer TMUs (160) and ROPs (80), with 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores. The AMD part has no tensor cores listed. The result is that the R9700 achieves 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the A4000 Mobile reaches 17.20 TFLOPS in both. Pixel and texture rates follow: 373.8 GPixel/s and 747.5 GTexel/s for AMD versus 134.4 GPixel/s and 268.8 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

Memory capacity is another major divider. The R9700 ships with 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The A4000 Mobile has 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 384.0 GB/s. The AMD card’s 4x memory capacity and 68% bandwidth advantage are critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Power and physical design differ as well. The R9700 has a 300 W TDP, uses a dual-slot cooler with a single 16-pin power connector, and requires a 700 W suggested PSU. It measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The A4000 Mobile has a 115 W TDP, no power connectors (portable device dependent), and no listed dimensions. The AMD card uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the R9700 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, whereas the A4000 Mobile’s outputs are portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is the clear choice for compute-heavy and legacy API workloads. Its 139.3% lead in Passmark GPU Compute and 114.2% lead in DirectX 11 make it suitable for rendering farms, simulation, and applications that rely on older graphics paths. The 32 GB memory pool and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth give it room for large models or high-resolution texture sets. The 4 nm process and 2920 MHz boost clock suggest sustained performance under load, backed by a 300 W TDP that allows aggressive power delivery.

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile wins in the Vulkan API, where it leads by 12.9% (73,002 versus 63,550). This makes it the better option for Vulkan-based game engines, certain CAD tools, or compute frameworks that leverage Vulkan compute. Its 115 W TDP and lack of power connectors also position it for mobile workstations where thermal and power budgets are tight. The Ampere architecture’s 160 tensor cores, while not benchmarked here, indicate a feature set aimed at AI inference tasks that the AMD card lacks entirely.

The data also shows that the R9700’s average benchmark score (23,315) sits 9.1% above the A4000 Mobile’s (21,379), but the nearest rivals for each card tell a different story. The R9700’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R9 M290X at 23,276 (0.2% delta), while the A4000 Mobile’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 at 21,629 (-1.2% delta). This suggests the R9700 outperforms its immediate peers by a wider margin than the A4000 Mobile does.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 delivers 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 versus 17.20 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile, a 2.78x advantage in theoretical peak throughput.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the RTX A4000 Mobile wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 73,002 against 63,550 for the AMD card, a 12.9% lead.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD R9700 has 32 GB of GDDR6, while the NVIDIA A4000 Mobile has 8 GB of GDDR6. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the AMD card’s bandwidth is 644.6 GB/s versus 384.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: The biggest delta is in Passmark GPU Compute, where the AMD card leads by 139.3% (15,300 versus 6,394).

Q: Are these cards comparable in overall tier?

A: The percentile rankings are close — 69th for the R9700 and 66th for the A4000 Mobile — but average scores differ by 9.1% (23,315 versus 21,379).

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD R9700 has a 300 W TDP with a 700 W suggested PSU, while the NVIDIA A4000 Mobile has a 115 W TDP and requires no external power connectors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 | NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 53,900 million | 17,400 million |

| Die Size | 357 mm² | 392 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 151.0M / mm² | 44.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1660 MHz | 1140 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2920 MHz | 1680 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2350 MHz | — |

| Memory Clock | 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 644.6 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 256 | 160 |

| ROPs | 128 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 64 | 40 |

| Tensor Cores | — | 160 |

| Pixel Rate | 373.8 GPixel/s | 134.4 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 747.5 GTexel/s | 268.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 47.84 TFLOPS | 17.20 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 47.84 TFLOPS (1:1) | 17.20 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 115 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | — |

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

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | — |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm | — |

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

| Release Date | 2025-07-22 | 2021-04-11 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Quadro Turing-M |

| Successor | — | Ada-MW |

| Launch MSRP | 1,299 USD | — |