AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 and AMD Radeon RX 480 represent two distinct eras of graphics hardware, separated by seven years of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive performance gap, with the RTX 4070 winning all three shared benchmark tests by margins exceeding 278%. The RTX 4070’s average benchmark score of 37,648 places it in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 480’s 33,997 average sits in the 78th percentile, a modest overall ranking difference that belies the magnitude of the generational leap in raw compute and modern feature support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three direct comparisons in the data are unambiguous, with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 winning every test by a factor of roughly three to four. In 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12), the RTX 4070 scores 3,854 against the RX 480’s 966, a delta of 299% — meaning the newer card delivers nearly four times the frame throughput in this demanding directx 12 workload. This is the closest of the three contests, yet it still represents a dominant victory for Ada Lovelace.

The gap widens further in compute-oriented tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4070 posts 154,858 points versus the RX 480’s 37,998, a delta of 307.5%. This test leverages raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth, where the RTX 4070’s 29.15 TFLOPS FP32 and 504.2 GB/s bandwidth completely overwhelm the RX 480’s 5.834 TFLOPS and 256.0 GB/s. The Vulkan result follows a similar pattern: 174,152 for the RTX 4070 against 45,968 for the RX 480, a 278.9% advantage. Notably, the RX 480 does not have a corresponding 3DMark Steel Nomad score in its individual benchmark list, but the head-to-head entry confirms the test ran for both cards.

In relative terms, the RTX 4070’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (delta 0.1%), AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (delta 0.4%), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (delta -1.3%). The RX 480, meanwhile, sits close to the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (delta 0.1%) and AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (delta -0.4%). The RTX 4070’s average score is 10.7% higher than the RX 480’s, but the head-to-head deltas show that in specific modern workloads, the advantage is far larger than the aggregate suggests. The data indicates that the RX 480’s percentile ranking is propped up by legacy DX9 and DX11 tests where it remains competitive, but it cannot match the RTX 4070 in current-generation APIs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two cards is the root cause of the benchmark disparity. The RTX 4070 uses the AD104 chip on TSMC’s 5 nm process, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die for a density of 121.8M transistors per mm². The RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, yielding just 24.6M transistors per mm². This is a five-fold difference in transistor density, allowing the RTX 4070 to integrate far more complex logic and dedicated hardware.

The RTX 4070 features 5,888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, alongside 46 dedicated ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores. The RX 480 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor core hardware whatsoever. The RTX 4070’s pixel rate of 158.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 455.4 GTexel/s dwarf the RX 480’s 40.51 GPixel/s and 182.3 GTexel/s. Memory configuration also diverges sharply: the RTX 4070 uses 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus, achieving 504.2 GB/s, while the RX 480 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for 256.0 GB/s. The RTX 4070’s narrower bus is more than compensated by GDDR6X’s higher effective data rate.

Feature support further separates them. The RTX 4070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders, whereas the RX 480 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the RTX 4070 lists Vulkan 1.4 while the RX 480 lists Vulkan 1.3. The RTX 4070 also has a newer bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x16) and a more modern display output configuration (HDMI 2.1 plus three DisplayPort 1.4a, versus HDMI 2.0b plus three DisplayPort 1.4a). The RTX 4070’s power draw is 200 W versus 150 W for the RX 480, with a 1x 16-pin connector versus 1x 6-pin, and a suggested PSU of 550 W versus 450 W.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 wins every shared benchmark in the data, so the practical question is where the RX 480 retains any relevance. The RX 480’s individual benchmark list includes a Geekbench Metal score of 51,057, which the RTX 4070 does not have a comparable result for, but this is an Apple-specific API and not a cross-platform comparison. The RTX 4070’s PassMark scores — DirectX 9 at 320, DirectX 10 at 139, DirectX 11 at 244, DirectX 12 at 103, G2D at 1,164, G3D at 26,927, and GPU compute at 14,720 — show strength across the board, while the RX 480’s own architecture is too old to run many of these tests, as they are absent from its benchmark list.

For gaming and modern workloads, the RTX 4070 is the clear choice. Its 299% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad indicates that DX12 titles with ray tracing or advanced geometry will be playable at high settings, whereas the RX 480 would struggle to maintain playable frame rates. The RTX 4070’s 307.5% lead in OpenCL and 278.9% lead in Vulkan make it far better suited for compute tasks like machine learning inference (via tensor cores) or Vulkan-based game engines. The RX 480’s 8 GB of GDDR5 may still suffice for older titles at 1080p, but its lack of ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support exclude it from modern feature sets.

The RTX 4070’s 81st percentile ranking versus the RX 480’s 78th shows that the older card is not obsolete in aggregate terms, but this is misleading. The RX 480’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7700S, a modern laptop GPU, and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB, both of which score within 0.5% of it. This suggests the RX 480 still trades blows with entry-level modern cards, but it cannot approach the RTX 4070’s performance class. For users with legacy DX9/DX11 libraries, the RX 480’s PassMark DirectX 9 score of 320 (if it had one) would be competitive, but the data does not provide that figure. In practice, the RTX 4070 wins in every scenario where both cards can run the same workload.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4070 than the RX 480 in 3DMark Steel Nomad?

A: The RTX 4070 scores 3,854 versus the RX 480’s 966, a 299% advantage. This is the smallest delta of the three head-to-head tests.

Q: Does the RX 480 support ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 480 has no ray tracing cores (rtCores is null), while the RTX 4070 has 46. The RTX 4070 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing features, whereas the RX 480 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4070 has 504.2 GB/s from 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus. The RX 480 has 256.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The RTX 4070’s bandwidth is nearly double.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The RTX 4070 averages 37,648 across its benchmark suite, while the RX 480 averages 33,997. This is a 10.7% difference, though head-to-head tests show much larger gaps in specific workloads.

Q: Are the cards the same physical size?

A: Both are 240 mm (9.4 inches) long and dual-slot. The RTX 4070 is 110 mm (4.3 inches) high and 40 mm (1.6 inches) wide, while the RX 480 is 95 mm (3.7 inches) high and 35 mm (1.4 inches) wide.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The RTX 4070 has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die (TSMC 5 nm). The RX 480 has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die (GlobalFoundries 14 nm).

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 | AMD Radeon RX 480 |

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

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.8M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1920 MHz | 1120 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2475 MHz | 1266 MHz |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 504.2 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 5888 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 184 | 144 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 46 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 184 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 158.4 GPixel/s | 40.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 455.4 GTexel/s | 182.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 29.15 TFLOPS | 5.834 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 29.15 TFLOPS (1:1) | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 200 W | 150 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions (H x W) | 110 mm x 40 mm | 95 mm x 35 mm |

| Release Date | 2023-04-11 | 2016-06-28 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | 229 USD |