AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti has an average benchmark score of 29,945, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X scores 27,973. That puts the RTX 3070 Ti roughly 7% higher in aggregate, and the data places it at the 75th percentile of all GPUs versus the W5500X’s 73rd percentile.

Q: What is the closest rival for each card according to benchmark data?

A: For the RTX 3070 Ti, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile, which scores 29,928 — a difference of just 0.1%. For the W5500X, the closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti at 28,020, which trails by 0.2%.

Q: Which card has more shading units and what does that imply?

A: The RTX 3070 Ti packs 6,144 shading units versus 1,536 on the W5500X. This fourfold difference in shader count is a primary driver of the RTX 3070 Ti’s 21.75 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, compared to 5.398 TFLOPS on the AMD card.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RTX 3070 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W5500X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each card?

A: The RTX 3070 Ti uses 8 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 608.3 GB/s. The W5500X also has 8 GB, but it is GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s — a 2.7x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density despite being on a larger process node?

A: The RTX 3070 Ti, built on Samsung’s 8 nm process, has a transistor density of 44.4M / mm², slightly higher than the W5500X’s 40.5M / mm² on TSMC’s 7 nm node. The NVIDIA chip also has far more transistors overall: 17,400 million versus 6,400 million.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 3070 Ti is built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture using the GA104 chip, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The W5500X uses AMD’s RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 14 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process. The process difference is notable: the AMD card uses a smaller node, but the NVIDIA chip is substantially larger at 392 mm² versus 158 mm².

Transistor counts reflect the scale gap. The GA104 contains 17,400 million transistors, while Navi 14 has 6,400 million. Despite the smaller die, the W5500X’s transistor density is 40.5M / mm², slightly under the RTX 3070 Ti’s 44.4M / mm².

Core configurations diverge sharply. The RTX 3070 Ti has 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads. The W5500X has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no RT cores or tensor cores listed. This makes the NVIDIA card fundamentally more capable in ray-traced and compute-heavy tasks.

Memory subsystems differ in type and bandwidth. The RTX 3070 Ti uses 8 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 19 Gbps effective and bandwidth of 608.3 GB/s. The W5500X uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 14 Gbps effective and 224.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card’s bandwidth advantage is more than 2.7x.

Power and interface specs also set them apart. The RTX 3070 Ti has a TDP of 290 W, requires a 600 W power supply, and uses a 1x 12-pin connector. The W5500X has a 125 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU, with no power connector listed. The NVIDIA card is PCIe 4.0 x16, while the AMD card uses Apple MPX bus interface — a clear indicator of its Mac-oriented design.

Display outputs differ as well. The RTX 3070 Ti offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The W5500X has 2x HDMI 2.0b only. The RTX 3070 Ti also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W5500X is capped at DirectX 12 (12_1).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct comparison benchmarks are not available in the data set. However, individual benchmark results provide a clear picture of relative performance across different APIs and workloads.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3070 Ti scores 119,718. The W5500X has no OpenCL score listed, but its Geekbench Metal score is 27,973 — the only benchmark recorded for the AMD card. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 3070 Ti scores 139,541, which is roughly 5x higher than the W5500X’s Metal result. This gap is consistent with the massive differences in shading units, texture rate, and memory bandwidth.

The RTX 3070 Ti’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3,478. PassMark results for the NVIDIA card span DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, with scores of 261, 155, 192, and 91 respectively. Its PassMark G3D score is 23,356, and its PassMark GPU Compute score is 11,601. The W5500X has no PassMark entries, making it impossible to compare those specific workloads.

The RTX 3070 Ti’s average benchmark score of 29,945 places it 0.1% ahead of the RTX 5070 Mobile (29,928) and 0.5% above the RTX 2080 Ti (29,783). It trails the AMD Radeon RX 6800 (30,095) by 0.5% and the RX 6700 (30,433) by 1.6%. This indicates the RTX 3070 Ti sits in a tight performance cluster among high-end cards from the previous generation.

The W5500X’s average score of 27,973 puts it 0.2% behind the GTX 980 Ti (28,020) and 0.5% behind the Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27,839 is actually lower — the data shows the W5500X at 27,973, which is 0.5% higher than the Pro Vega 20’s 27,839). It also trails the FirePro S7150 (28,117) by 0.5%, while leading the RX 7800M (27,883) by 0.3%. The W5500X’s performance class is clearly lower — roughly on par with a GTX 980 Ti from 2015.

Pixel and texture rates reinforce the gap. The RTX 3070 Ti delivers 169.9 GPixel/s and 339.8 GTexel/s, versus 56.22 GPixel/s and 168.7 GTexel/s for the W5500X. That is a 3x advantage in pixel throughput and a 2x advantage in texture throughput.

FP16 compute also differs in nature. The RTX 3070 Ti offers 21.75 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The W5500X provides 10.80 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. For workloads that use FP16, the NVIDIA card still wins by roughly 2x.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The RTX 3070 Ti outperforms the W5500X by a wide margin in nearly every measurable category. Its average benchmark score is 7% higher, its FP32 throughput is 4x greater, and its memory bandwidth is 2.7x higher. The NVIDIA card also brings hardware ray tracing and tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely.

For gamers and general Windows workstation users, the RTX 3070 Ti is the clear choice. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support, higher pixel rate, and broader display output options (HDMI 2.1 plus three DisplayPorts) make it more versatile for modern workloads. The 75th percentile ranking versus the W5500X’s 73rd reflects a meaningful performance class difference.

The W5500X is a niche product. Its Apple MPX bus interface and 2x HDMI 2.0b outputs indicate it is designed for Mac Pro systems, not general PC builds. Its 125 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU make it far more power-efficient, but that comes with a massive performance penalty. The 7 nm process gives it a smaller die (158 mm²) and lower transistor count (6,400 million), which explains its modest capabilities.

Users who need a card for a Mac environment with modest 3D requirements might find the W5500X acceptable, as its nearest rivals include the Radeon Pro Vega 20 and FirePro S7150. But anyone comparing these two cards for the same system should pick the RTX 3070 Ti without hesitation. The only scenario where the W5500X makes sense is if the Apple MPX bus interface is a hard requirement.

Both cards are end-of-life, and both launched at the same MSRP of 599 USD. That makes the performance gap even more stark: same launch price, but the RTX 3070 Ti delivers substantially more compute, bandwidth, and features.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti | AMD Radeon Pro W5500X |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 7 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 17,400 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 392 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 44.4M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1575 MHz | 1187 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 1757 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 19 Gbps effective | 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 608.3 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 192 | 96 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 48 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 192 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 169.9 GPixel/s | 56.22 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 339.8 GTexel/s | 168.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 21.75 TFLOPS | 5.398 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 21.75 TFLOPS (1:1) | 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 290 W | 125 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 12-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | Apple MPX |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x HDMI 2.0b |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length, 112 mm height | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2021-05-30 | 2019-12-10 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 20 | None |

| Successor | GeForce 40 | None |