AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S and the NVIDIA RTX A400. The database shows no shared test scores for these two workstation GPUs, so a direct performance comparison must be inferred from their individual specifications and the RTX A400's standalone benchmark results.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 has a full set of recorded benchmark scores. Its best result appears in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 22844, followed closely by Geekbench Vulkan at 22237. In Passmark tests, the A400 scores 5983 in G3D, 2557 in GPU compute, 899 in G2D, 87 in DirectX 9, 37 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 10, and 27 in DirectX 12. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 6078.

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S has no benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as zero, and its percentile versus all GPUs is 50. The RTX A400, by contrast, sits at the 35th percentile versus all GPUs, meaning roughly two-thirds of all recorded GPUs score higher in the database's combined ranking.

Because the AMD card has no recorded scores, the raw performance gap cannot be quantified with test results. However, the specification data indicates a massive difference in compute resources. The R9700S delivers 47.84 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS. That is a ratio of roughly 17.7 to 1 in raw floating-point throughput, though no benchmark confirms how that translates to real-world workload performance.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same pattern. The R9700S reaches 747.5 GTexel/s and 373.8 GPixel/s, while the A400 manages 42.29 GTexel/s and 28.19 GPixel/s. Memory bandwidth also heavily favors the AMD card: 644.6 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, a difference of more than six times. The R9700S also has far more memory capacity at 32 GB compared to 4 GB.

The RTX A400's nearest rivals in the database are all much lower-end parts. It sits effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117, with a delta of 0 and -0.6 percent respectively. It edges the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 by 0.5 percent and the AMD Radeon 760M by 1 percent. These are the only comparison points the database provides, and they place the A400 firmly in entry-level territory.

The Verdict

The data shows two cards built for entirely different segments. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S, with 32 GB of memory, 4096 shading units, and a 300 W power envelope, is positioned as a high-end workstation accelerator. The NVIDIA RTX A400, with 4 GB of memory, 768 shading units, and a 50 W power draw, occupies the low-power entry tier of the professional lineup.

Professionals working with large datasets, high-resolution textures, or GPU compute tasks should look to the R9700S based on its specifications alone. The 32 GB frame buffer and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth give it an enormous capacity advantage over the A400's 4 GB and 96.00 GB/s. The 17.7 to 1 FP32 throughput advantage reinforces that positioning.

The RTX A400 serves a different purpose. Its 50 W power draw requires no external power connectors, it fits in a single slot, and its 163 mm length suits compact systems. It also includes 24 tensor cores, which the R9700S does not list at all, making the A400 the only one of the two with dedicated AI acceleration hardware in its specification sheet. Users who need a low-profile, low-power GPU for basic display output or light compute may find the A400 sufficient.

The R9700S does not list tensor cores in its specifications, so any AI-specific advantage for the AMD card cannot be established from the database. The A400's tensor core count is a concrete differentiator in its favor for workloads that rely on those units.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus. The NVIDIA RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The R9700S delivers 644.6 GB/s, while the RTX A400 delivers 96.00 GB/s. The AMD card has roughly 6.7 times the bandwidth.

Q: Does the RTX A400 have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the RTX A400 includes 24 tensor cores. The R9700S specification sheet does not list a tensor core count.

Q: What power connectors does each card require?

A: The R9700S uses a single 16-pin connector and has a 300 W TDP. The RTX A400 has no power connectors and a 50 W TDP.

Q: How do the RTX A400's benchmark scores compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The A400 scores 6078 on average. It is within 1 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, NVIDIA Quadro P2000, Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, and AMD Radeon 760M, with deltas of 0, 0.5, -0.6, and 1 percent respectively.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking versus all GPUs?

A: The R9700S sits at the 50th percentile, while the RTX A400 sits at the 35th percentile. The R9700S has no recorded benchmark scores, so this ranking appears based on other data in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field. The R9700S uses a Navi 48 chip built on TSMC's 4 nm process, while the A400 uses a GA107 chip built on Samsung's 8 nm process. Transistor counts differ dramatically: 53,900 million for the AMD card versus 8,700 million for the NVIDIA card. Die size is 357 mm² versus 200 mm², and transistor density is 151.0M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the AMD card. The R9700S runs at a 1660 MHz base and 2920 MHz boost, with a 2350 MHz game clock. The A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: 2518 MHz at 20.1 Gbps effective for the R9700S versus 1500 MHz at 12 Gbps effective for the A400.

Compute unit counts show the scale of the gap. The R9700S has 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, 128 ROPs, and 64 ray tracing cores. The A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. The A400 counters with 24 tensor cores, a field the R9700S leaves unspecified.

The R9700S uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and requires a dual-slot form factor with a 16-pin power connector. It measures 267 mm in length, 109 mm in height, and 39 mm in width. The A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, fits in a single slot, draws power from the slot alone, and measures 163 mm by 69 mm. Display outputs differ as well: the R9700S provides four DisplayPort 2.1a connectors, while the A400 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

The R9700S was released on 2025-12-10, while the A400 was released on 2024-04-15. The R9700S lists the Radeon Pro Vega as its predecessor, and the A400 lists Quadro Turing as its predecessor with Workstation Ada as its successor.

Architecture Differences

The R9700S uses RDNA 4.0 architecture from AMD, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm node. The A400 uses NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm node. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical on paper.

The AMD card integrates 64 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA card integrates 6 ray tracing cores plus 24 tensor cores. The R9700S does not list tensor cores in its specification, which may indicate a different approach to AI acceleration or simply an omission in the database.

Both cards use GDDR6 memory, but the memory subsystems are built differently. The R9700S uses a 256-bit bus, while the A400 uses a 64-bit bus. The R9700S belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) generation, while the A400 belongs to the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation.

FP16 performance matches FP32 performance on both cards at a 1:1 ratio. The R9700S delivers 47.84 TFLOPS in both precisions, and the A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS in both. This parity suggests neither card uses dedicated half-rate FP16 paths, which is notable for compute workloads that rely on reduced precision.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700S wins on raw compute throughput. Its 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 figure is roughly 17.7 times the A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. It also wins decisively on memory capacity and bandwidth, offering 32 GB at 644.6 GB/s versus 4 GB at 96.00 GB/s. For rendering, simulation, or large-batch compute tasks, the specification data points entirely to the R9700S.

The R9700S also wins on interface and display technology. It uses PCIe 5.0 x16, which offers more bandwidth than the A400's PCIe 4.0 x8. Its DisplayPort 2.1a outputs support newer display standards than the A400's mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The R9700S also has a higher transistor density at 151.0M per mm², reflecting its more advanced 4 nm manufacturing process.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins on power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 50 W TDP requires no external power connectors and enables a single-slot design. The R9700S draws 300 W, needs a 16-pin connector, occupies two slots, and is significantly longer at 267 mm versus 163 mm. The A400 also has a lower suggested PSU rating of 250 W versus 700 W for the R9700S.

The A400 wins on tensor core availability. With 24 tensor cores explicitly listed, it offers dedicated hardware for AI inference and training workloads. The R9700S has no tensor core count in its specification, so the database cannot confirm any equivalent capability on the AMD side.

The A400 also has the only recorded benchmark results in this comparison. Its average score of 6078 and its percentile ranking of 35 provide concrete data points, while the R9700S has no test scores recorded. This means the A400's real-world behavior is documented, whereas the R9700S's performance must be inferred entirely from its specifications.