NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 represent two extremes of the GPU timeline: a 2012 mobile Fermi part and a 2024 desktop Ada Lovelace monster. The data shows a generational chasm in every measurable category, from process node to memory bandwidth. This analysis breaks down exactly where each card stands, based solely on the provided benchmark and specification data.

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw benchmark performance?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 scores 6,269.5 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, while the GTX 670M scores 6,513 in Geekbench OpenCL. These are different benchmarks, so a direct numeric comparison isn't possible, but the RTX card's score places it at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 670M sits at the 38th percentile. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is essentially tied with its nearest rival, the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (0% delta), while the GTX 670M is 0.3% ahead of the GT 555M.

Q: What is the most significant architectural difference between them?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, packing 76,300 million transistors. The GTX 670M uses the older Fermi 2.0 architecture on a 40 nm process with just 1,950 million transistors. This represents a 39x increase in transistor count and a dramatic shift in manufacturing technology.

Q: Does the GTX 670M have any ray tracing or tensor core capabilities?

A: No. The GTX 670M has no RT cores and no tensor cores listed in the data. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, by contrast, includes 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-assisted features that the older card cannot perform.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The GTX 670M features 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 offers 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, with a much higher 672.3 GB/s bandwidth. The newer card has over 9x the memory capacity and nearly 9.3x the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a base clock of 2340 MHz and a boost clock of 2610 MHz. The GTX 670M has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The RTX card's memory runs at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The GTX 670M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors, drawing power from the portable device. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a 285 W TDP, requires a triple-slot cooler, uses a single 16-pin power connector, and needs a 600 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 670M is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 40 nm process. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, resulting in a density of 5.9 million transistors per mm². Its compute layout includes 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The card supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 represents Ada Lovelace, NVIDIA's latest architecture, on a 5 nm TSMC process. It packs 76,300 million transistors into a 609 mm² die, achieving 125.3 million transistors per mm² — a density over 21x higher than the Fermi part. The compute core configuration is drastically different: 8,448 shading units, 264 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Crucially, it adds 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores, enabling real-time ray tracing and DLSS capabilities absent from the GTX 670M.

The memory subsystem also differs fundamentally. The GTX 670M uses 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus. The newer card's memory bandwidth of 672.3 GB/s dwarfs the older card's 72.00 GB/s. The RTX card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, with newer display outputs including HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two cards in the data. Each has a single benchmark score from different test suites, making a side-by-side comparison impossible. The GTX 670M scores 6,513 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it 0.3% ahead of the GT 555M and 0.5% ahead of the Quadro M5000M, but 0.6% behind the Intel UHD Graphics P750. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 scores 6,269.5 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, tying exactly with the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (0% delta), sitting 0.8% ahead of the AMD FirePro W600, and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M350.

The percentile rankings are close — 38th for the GTX 670M and 36th for the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER — but this reflects their positions within entirely different benchmark pools. The GTX 670M's nearest rivals are older mobile and integrated parts, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's rivals include newer desktop cards. The data indicates both cards sit near the middle of their respective performance distributions, though the RTX card's raw specifications suggest far greater capability in modern workloads.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is the vastly superior GPU by every specification metric. It offers 25x more shading units, 4x more ROPs, over 9x the memory bandwidth, and nearly 55x the FP32 compute throughput (44.10 TFLOPS vs 803.7 GFLOPS). Its 5 nm process, 66 RT cores, and 264 tensor cores make it a modern, feature-complete part.

The GTX 670M, however, was designed for a different era. Its 75 W TDP and MXM form factor suited portable gaming laptops in 2012. Today, it is end-of-life, with no tensor or RT support, and its DirectX 12 (11_0) compliance is outdated. The RTX card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 670M lacks Vulkan entirely.

For anyone building a modern desktop, the choice is obvious: the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, with its launch MSRP of 799 USD, is the only viable option for current games and applications. The GTX 670M is strictly a legacy part, useful only for vintage systems or basic 2D tasks.

Specification Differences

• Process Node: 40 nm (GTX 670M) vs 5 nm (RTX 4070 Ti SUPER)
• Transistors: 1,950 million vs 76,300 million
• Die Size: 332 mm² vs 609 mm²
• Memory Size: 1536 MB vs 16 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs GDDR6X
• Memory Bus: 192 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 72.00 GB/s vs 672.3 GB/s
• Shading Units: 336 vs 8,448
• TMUs: 56 vs 264
• ROPs: 24 vs 96
• RT Cores: None vs 66
• Tensor Cores: None vs 264
• FP32 Performance: 803.7 GFLOPS vs 44.10 TFLOPS
• Pixel Rate: 8.372 GPixel/s vs 250.6 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 33.49 GTexel/s vs 689.0 GTexel/s
• TDP: 75 W vs 285 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs Triple-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 1x 16-pin
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 4.0 x16
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan Support: None vs 1.4
• Release Date: 2012-03-21 vs 2024-06-09

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 wins in every modern workload category. Its 66 RT cores handle ray-traced games natively, a task the GTX 670M cannot even attempt. The 264 tensor cores enable DLSS upscaling and AI-based features, which are absent on the Fermi card. The 16 GB GDDR6X frame buffer supports high-resolution textures and large datasets, while the GTX 670M's 1536 MB is insufficient for even current mid-range games. The 44.10 TFLOPS FP32 throughput makes the RTX card suitable for compute-heavy tasks like rendering and simulation, where the GTX 670M's 803.7 GFLOPS would be a bottleneck.

The GTX 670M's only advantages are practical rather than performance-based. Its 75 W TDP and MXM form factor made it suitable for thin gaming laptops of its era, and it requires no external power connector. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, at 285 W with a triple-slot cooler and a 16-pin connector, demands a full desktop chassis and a 600 W PSU. For a portable, low-power legacy system, the GTX 670M remains functional. For anything requiring modern graphics features, high frame rates, or advanced rendering, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is the only choice — the data does not support any other conclusion.