AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head measurements between the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. The Rubin GPU has no recorded benchmark scores, while the Radeon AI PRO R9700 has ten individual test results across multiple benchmark suites. This absence of comparative data means the analysis must rely on the recorded scores for the AMD card and the architectural specifications for both products.

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 7006, which places it in the 69th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its Geekbench OpenCL score reaches 118202, while the Vulkan score comes in at 63550. PassMark results show a G3D score of 26979 and a GPU compute score of 15300. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests for this card is 23315.

The Rubin GPU, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of zero and sits in the 50th percentile. No test results exist in the database for this part. The nearest rivals for the Radeon AI PRO R9700 are all within a narrow band: the AMD Radeon R9 M290X averages 23276 (0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 6600M averages 23273 (0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 averages 23250 (0.3% delta), and the NVIDIA P106-100 averages 23249 (0.3% delta). These small deltas indicate that the Radeon AI PRO R9700 sits at the edge of its performance cluster, marginally ahead of each listed rival.

The absence of Rubin benchmark data means the database cannot produce win counts for either product. The winsA and winsB fields both record zero. Any performance comparison must therefore proceed from the recorded specifications and the one-sided benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: Does the database show any benchmark results for the NVIDIA Rubin GPU?

A: No. The Rubin GPU has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has ten recorded benchmark scores with an average of 23315.

Q: How does the AMD card compare to its closest rivals in the database?

A: The Radeon AI PRO R9700 averages 23315, which is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M290X (23276) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23273), and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (23250) and the NVIDIA P106-100 (23249).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 boosts to 2920 MHz, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU boosts to 2267 MHz. The AMD card also has a higher base clock at 1660 MHz versus 700 MHz for the Rubin.

Q: What are the power requirements listed for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has a TDP of 300 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W and a single 16-pin connector. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2300 W with a suggested PSU of 2700 W and no power connector listed.

Q: Does either card support display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a outputs. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU lists no display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 wins in every category where recorded data exists. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 7006 demonstrates DirectX 12 rendering capability. The Geekbench OpenCL result of 118202 and Vulkan result of 63550 show strong compute and graphics API performance. PassMark scores across DirectX 10 (155), DirectX 11 (272), DirectX 12 (83), and DirectX 9 (363) provide a complete legacy API picture. The G2D score of 1236 and G3D score of 26979 cover 2D and 3D workloads respectively, while GPU compute reaches 15300.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU cannot claim wins in any recorded benchmark because no tests exist. Its advantage must be inferred from specifications. The Rubin offers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) against the AMD card's 47.84 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The Rubin's texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 747.5 GTexel/s for AMD indicates a substantial fill-rate advantage. The Rubin's memory bandwidth of 22.1 TB/s dwarfs the 644.6 GB/s on the AMD card, and its 288 GB capacity exceeds 32 GB by a factor of nine.

For pixel rate, the AMD card records 373.8 GPixel/s against the Rubin's 54.41 GPixel/s. This is one specification where the AMD part leads. The AMD card also has 128 ROPs versus 24 on the Rubin, and 4096 shading units versus 28672 for the Rubin. The Rubin has 896 texture mapping units and 896 tensor cores, while the AMD card has 256 TMUs and 64 ray tracing cores with no tensor core count listed.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 uses a Navi 48 chip on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses a GR100 chip on Rubin architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die. Transistor density reaches 151.0M per mm² for AMD and 230.8M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds favor AMD in base and boost but not memory. The AMD base clock is 1660 MHz and boost is 2920 MHz, with a game clock of 2350 MHz. Memory clocks at 2518 MHz with 20.1 Gbps effective. The Rubin runs a 700 MHz base and 2267 MHz boost, with memory at 2695 MHz and 10.8 Gbps effective. The AMD memory interface spans 256 bit, while the Rubin uses 16384 bit.

The AMD card has 32 GB GDDR6, 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, 64 RT cores, and no tensor core count listed. The Rubin has 288 GB HBM4, 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, 24 ROPs, no RT core count listed, and 896 tensor cores. The AMD pixel rate is 373.8 GPixel/s and texture rate is 747.5 GTexel/s. The Rubin pixel rate is 54.41 GPixel/s and texture rate is 2,031.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 47.84 TFLOPS for AMD and 130.0 TFLOPS for Rubin. FP16 is 47.84 TFLOPS (1:1) for AMD and 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) for Rubin.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The AMD card has a 300 W TDP, dual-slot design, 1x 16-pin connector, and 700 W suggested PSU. It measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Rubin has a 2300 W TDP, SXM module form factor, no power connector listed, and 2700 W suggested PSU. No dimensions are recorded for the Rubin. Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 5.0 x16 for AMD and PCIe 6.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a for AMD, none for NVIDIA. API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for AMD; all three are listed as N/A for NVIDIA.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 uses RDNA 4.0 architecture on a Navi 48 chip. This is part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) generation. The predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro Vega. The process node is 4 nm at TSMC. The card has 53,900 million transistors and a 357 mm² die. The architecture includes 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, 128 ROPs, and 64 ray tracing cores in a design that supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The memory subsystem uses GDDR6 across a 256-bit interface. The FP16 to FP32 ratio is 1:1, meaning both reach 47.84 TFLOPS.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses Rubin architecture on a GR100 chip. This belongs to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation, with Server Blackwell as its predecessor. The process node is 3 nm at TSMC. The chip contains 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 230.8M per mm². The architecture deploys 28672 shading units, 896 texture mapping units, just 24 ROPs, and 896 tensor cores. No ray tracing core count is listed. The memory uses HBM4 across a 16384-bit interface. The FP16 to FP32 ratio is 2:1, delivering 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 against 130.0 TFLOPS FP32. The API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its server-oriented role with no display outputs.

The transistor density difference is notable: the Rubin packs 230.8M transistors per mm² versus 151.0M for the AMD Navi 48. The Rubin die is 1456 mm², more than four times the size of the 357 mm² AMD die. The total transistor count for Rubin, 336,000 million, exceeds AMD's 53,900 million by a factor of six. The shading unit count of 28672 for Rubin is seven times the 4096 found on the AMD card.

The Verdict

The database records no benchmark results for the NVIDIA Rubin GPU, so any choice between these two cards must follow different evidence paths. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has a complete set of ten benchmark scores, an average of 23315, and a 69th percentile ranking among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals sit within 0.3% of its average score, indicating the AMD card leads its immediate cluster by a narrow margin.

The Rubin GPU's recorded data consists entirely of specifications. It has a 50th percentile ranking and zero average score. The specifications describe a part designed for different workloads: 288 GB of HBM4, 22.1 TB/s bandwidth, 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, 260.0 TFLOPS FP16, 896 tensor cores, and a 2300 W TDP with an SXM module form factor. This points to a server accelerator with no display outputs and no consumer API support.

The AMD card offers 32 GB GDDR6, 644.6 GB/s bandwidth, 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16, 64 ray tracing cores, and display outputs for HDMI 2.1b and DisplayPort 2.1a. Its 300 W TDP and dual-slot design with a 267 mm length make it compatible with standard workstation configurations. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and DirectX 12 Ultimate support indicate a client or workstation focus.

The data supports a clear split. For any workload requiring recorded benchmark evidence, the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is the only card with measurable results. The Rubin GPU has no performance data in the database, so it cannot be positioned on the basis of tested outcomes. For workloads aligned with its specifications, the Rubin's memory capacity, bandwidth, tensor core count, and FP16 throughput suggest a different performance envelope, but the database contains no numbers to confirm that expectation.

The AMD card's 69th percentile places it above the median, while the Rubin's 50th percentile reflects the absence of data rather than measured performance. The Radeon AI PRO R9700 has a launch MSRP of 1,299 USD. The Rubin has no launch MSRP recorded. The production status for both is listed as Active, with release dates of 2025-07-22 for the AMD card and 2025-12-31 for the Rubin.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is the only card in this comparison with benchmark scores, and it outperforms its nearest rivals in the database by 0.2% to 0.3%. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU cannot be evaluated on performance grounds because no test results exist. Its specification sheet describes a server accelerator with extreme memory and compute resources, but the database provides no measured confirmation. For users who require tested performance data, the AMD card is the only option with evidence.