AMD Radeon Pro 5700 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a clear verdict: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests, with only a single victory for AMD Radeon Pro 5700. The most decisive NVIDIA win comes in PassMark DirectX 11, where it scores 138 against AMD's 78, a 76.9% advantage. Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar gap: 92,939 versus 52,787, a 76.1% lead. These two tests establish the pattern: in compute-heavy and legacy DirectX workloads, the RTX 3070 Mobile dominates by roughly three quarters.

Vulkan performance follows suit, with NVIDIA scoring 86,768 against AMD's 51,289, a 69.2% margin. PassMark DirectX 10 delivers a 59.2% win (113 vs 71). The smallest NVIDIA victories are in DirectX 9 (160 vs 143, an 11.9% edge) and DirectX 12 (64 vs 48, a 33.3% margin). PassMark G3D, the aggregate 3D graphics score, favors NVIDIA by 32.2%: 15,309 versus 11,583. PassMark GPU Compute adds a 37.6% win (6,827 vs 4,961).

The single AMD win is PassMark G2D, the 2D graphics test, where AMD scores 805 against NVIDIA's 641, a 20.4% advantage. This is the only category where AMD leads, and it does not offset the breadth of NVIDIA's victories elsewhere. The average benchmark score reflects this: NVIDIA sits at 20,534 while AMD trails at 18,189, a difference of roughly 2,345 points.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces NVIDIA's position. The RTX 3070 Mobile's average score places it within 0.1% of the Intel Arc B570 (20,556) and 0.2% above the Intel Arc A750 (20,582). AMD's 18,189 average sits 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18,159) and 0.5% above the RTX 2060 SUPER (18,093). In percentile terms, NVIDIA ranks in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, AMD in the 62nd. The percentile gap is modest, but the head-to-head deltas are substantial.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. NVIDIA uses the GA104 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. AMD counters with the Navi 10 chip on RDNA 1.0 architecture, produced by TSMC on a 7 nm node. The process node difference matters: AMD's 7 nm allows a smaller die, 251 mm² versus NVIDIA's 392 mm². Transistor counts also diverge significantly: NVIDIA packs 17,400 million transistors into its larger die, while AMD fits 10,300 million into the smaller one. Transistor density is surprisingly close, 44.4M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 41.0M per mm² for AMD, showing that both process nodes achieve similar packing efficiency despite the node size difference.

Core configuration tells a different story. NVIDIA fields 5,120 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units. AMD has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. NVIDIA also carries dedicated hardware that AMD lacks entirely: 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores. AMD lists no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. This is a structural advantage for NVIDIA in any workload that can use those dedicated units, even though the raw shading unit count already favors NVIDIA by more than 2:1.

Clock speeds show a tradeoff. AMD runs a higher base clock at 1,243 MHz versus NVIDIA's 1,110 MHz, but NVIDIA boosts higher at 1,560 MHz versus AMD's 1,350 MHz. Memory clocks differ too: NVIDIA runs at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) while AMD uses 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). Both cards have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but NVIDIA's higher memory clock yields 448.0 GB/s bandwidth against AMD's 384.0 GB/s, a 16.7% advantage.

Theoretical throughput numbers reflect the core count gap. NVIDIA delivers 15.97 TFLOPS FP32, AMD manages 6.221 TFLOPS. In FP16, NVIDIA offers 15.97 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while AMD reaches 12.44 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 124.8 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate likewise: 249.6 GTexel/s versus 194.4 GTexel/s. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16, and both are end-of-life products. NVIDIA released in January 2021, AMD in August 2020.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA wins broadly across 3D rendering, compute, and API-specific tests. The PassMark G3D score of 15,309 versus 11,583 indicates a substantial edge in general 3D graphics performance. Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan wins show compute and modern graphics API strength. The DirectX 11 win at 76.9% is particularly notable, as it suggests NVIDIA's driver and architecture handle that API generation with exceptional efficiency. The DirectX 12 win at 33.3%, while smaller, confirms NVIDIA maintains its lead in the latest API. For gaming workloads, ray tracing, and tensor-based applications, NVIDIA has dedicated hardware that AMD cannot match.

AMD's sole win in PassMark G2D, with a score of 805 versus 641, indicates better 2D rasterization performance. This is a narrow category, but it does suggest AMD holds an advantage in desktop composition, 2D UI rendering, or similar lightweight workloads. The 20.4% margin is not trivial in absolute terms, but it is the only bright spot. AMD also has a lower power draw profile in some respects: its 130 W TDP versus NVIDIA's 115 W, though AMD's suggested PSU is 300 W while NVIDIA lists none. For users whose workload is primarily 2D and who do not need 3D or compute acceleration, AMD offers a measurable benefit.

In compute-heavy tasks, NVIDIA's advantage is stark. PassMark GPU Compute shows 6,827 versus 4,961, a 37.6% lead. Geekbench OpenCL shows an even larger 76.1% gap. The presence of 160 tensor cores gives NVIDIA a structural advantage for AI inference and machine learning workloads, even though the benchmark suite does not directly measure tensor performance. For users running OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the data says NVIDIA is the clear choice.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. Process node: NVIDIA uses 8 nm Samsung, AMD uses 7 nm TSMC. Die size: NVIDIA 392 mm², AMD 251 mm². Transistors: NVIDIA 17,400 million, AMD 10,300 million. Transistor density: 44.4M/mm² versus 41.0M/mm². Base clock: 1,110 MHz versus 1,243 MHz. Boost clock: 1,560 MHz versus 1,350 MHz. Memory clock: 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). Memory bandwidth: 448.0 GB/s versus 384.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 5,120 versus 2,304. TMUs: 160 versus 144. ROPs: 80 versus 64. RT cores: 40 versus none. Tensor cores: 160 versus none. Pixel rate: 124.8 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 249.6 GTexel/s versus 194.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 15.97 TFLOPS versus 6.221 TFLOPS. FP16: 15.97 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 12.44 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 115 W versus 130 W. Suggested PSU: none versus 300 W. Slot width: not specified versus IGP. Display outputs: portable device dependent versus no outputs.

Memory size is identical (8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus), as are the bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x16), DirectX version support does differ: NVIDIA supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), AMD supports 12 (12_1). OpenGL is 4.6 for both, Vulkan 1.4 for both. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded. Both are end-of-life, with NVIDIA released January 2021 and AMD August 2020.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests. AMD Radeon Pro 5700 wins only PassMark G2D.

Q: How large is NVIDIA's lead in OpenCL performance?

A: NVIDIA scores 92,939 against AMD's 52,787 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 76.1% advantage.

Q: Does AMD have any ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. AMD lists no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. NVIDIA has 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: NVIDIA has 448.0 GB/s bandwidth from 14 Gbps effective memory clocks. AMD has 384.0 GB/s from 12 Gbps effective. NVIDIA leads by 16.7%.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller die and newer process node?

A: AMD uses a 7 nm TSMC process with a 251 mm² die. NVIDIA uses an 8 nm Samsung process with a 392 mm² die.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: NVIDIA averages 20,534 points across all benchmark tests. AMD averages 18,189 points. NVIDIA sits in the 65th percentile, AMD in the 62nd.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is the superior GPU for nearly every workload category. It wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests, with margins exceeding 30% in DirectX 11, OpenCL, Vulkan, and G3D. The 76.9% DirectX 11 lead and 76.1% OpenCL lead are decisive. NVIDIA's 5,120 shading units, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores give it a hardware advantage that shows up across the benchmark suite. The 65th percentile ranking versus AMD's 62nd confirms the edge, as does the 20,534 average score against 18,189.

AMD Radeon Pro 5700 has one meaningful strength: PassMark G2D, where it leads by 20.4%. For users whose work is exclusively 2D rendering or desktop composition, AMD offers a measurable benefit. Its 7 nm process and smaller die also mean a more compact physical footprint, and its 12.44 TFLOPS FP16 at 2:1 ratio provides respectable half-precision throughput. However, AMD's lack of ray tracing and tensor cores, combined with fewer shading units and lower memory bandwidth, places it at a structural disadvantage in modern 3D and compute workloads.

For gaming, 3D rendering, compute acceleration, or any ray-traced or AI-assisted application, the choice is NVIDIA. The RTX 3070 Mobile's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) versus AMD's DirectX 12 (12_1) further solidifies its position for future software. For pure 2D tasks or environments where AMD's higher base clock and lower die size matter, the Radeon Pro 5700 has a narrow niche. But the benchmark record is unambiguous: NVIDIA wins the overwhelming majority of tests, often by wide margins, and represents the stronger overall option in this comparison.