NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 at the same overall performance percentile (86th), yet their average scores tell different stories. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER averages 48,704 points, while the RTX A2000 averages 47,915 points, a gap of 1.6% in favor of the former. This narrow margin in aggregate metrics, however, masks a fundamental split in workload characteristics, as the modern GeForce card wins decisively in every head-to-head test available, while the older workstation card holds its ground in specific legacy and compute scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the clear winner in modern, API-heavy workloads. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 5,569 versus the A2000’s 1,345, a 314.1% advantage. This indicates that the GeForce card is substantially stronger in DirectX 12 rendering tasks, which are common in contemporary gaming and real-time visualization. The gap extends to compute-oriented synthetic tests as well: in Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER scores 223,091 against 73,310, a 204.3% lead, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 206,035 versus 69,089, a 198.2% lead. These results point to a GPU that is simply in a different performance class for any workload that leverages recent API features or raw parallel throughput.

The RTX A2000, by contrast, does not win any of the three head-to-head benchmarks. Its strengths are relative rather than absolute. The data shows that its average benchmark score of 47,915 is only 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile (47,743) and 2.8% ahead of the Intel Arc A530M (46,614). This suggests that the A2000 is a competitive option within its own niche of low-power, compact workstation cards, but it is not a rival to the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER in raw performance. The A2000’s wins are contextual: it offers a much lower power envelope (70 W versus 285 W) and a smaller physical footprint (167 mm versus 310 mm length), making it the appropriate choice for space-constrained or thermally limited systems where the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s triple-slot design and 600 W suggested PSU would be impractical.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is built on the AD103 chip using the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². The RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip with the older Ampere architecture, built on Samsung’s 8 nm process. This chip houses 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, with a density of 43.5M per mm². The process and architectural leap gives the Ada card a density advantage of roughly 2.8 times.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 8,448 shading units, 264 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, 66 RT cores, and 264 tensor cores. The RTX A2000 is equipped with 3,328 shading units, 104 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 26 RT cores, and 104 tensor cores. In every category, the GeForce card has at least 2.5 times the hardware resources. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER runs at a 2340 MHz base and 2610 MHz boost, while the A2000 operates at a much lower 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. This explains why the performance gap in compute-heavy benchmarks is so large, as the Ada card combines more cores with higher frequencies.

Memory subsystems are equally distinct. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER features 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s. The GeForce card also uses faster memory clocking, with 21 Gbps effective versus 12 Gbps effective. Both cards support the same API feature set—DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4—so software compatibility is not a differentiator, but the underlying hardware capabilities are vastly different.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has an average benchmark score of 48,704, which is 1.6% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A2000’s average of 47,915.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER in DirectX 12?

A: In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER scores 5,569 compared to the RTX A2000’s 1,345, a 314.1% difference in favor of the GeForce card.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory, while the RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory. The former also has a wider 256-bit bus versus the latter’s 192-bit bus.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life products. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER was released on 2024-01-07, and the RTX A2000 was released on 2021-08-09.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 have any performance advantage in the head-to-head tests?

A: No, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER wins all three head-to-head benchmarks. The RTX A2000 has zero wins, with its closest margin being a 198.2% deficit in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a TDP of 285 W, while the RTX A2000 has a TDP of 70 W. The GeForce card requires a 600 W suggested PSU, whereas the A2000 only needs a 250 W unit.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key fields where the two cards differ, based solely on the FACT PACK data:

• Chip: AD103 (RTX 4070 Ti SUPER) vs GA106 (RTX A2000)
• Architecture: Ada Lovelace vs Ampere
• Process Node: 5 nm (TSMC) vs 8 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: 45,900 million vs 12,000 million
• Die Size: 379 mm² vs 276 mm²
• Transistor Density: 121.1M / mm² vs 43.5M / mm²
• Base Clock: 2340 MHz vs 562 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2610 MHz vs 1200 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective) vs 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 16 GB vs 6 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6X vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 192 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 672.3 GB/s vs 288.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 8448 vs 3328
• TMUs: 264 vs 104
• ROPs: 96 vs 48
• RT Cores: 66 vs 26
• Tensor Cores: 264 vs 104
• Pixel Rate: 250.6 GPixel/s vs 57.60 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 689.0 GTexel/s vs 124.8 GTexel/s
• FP32: 44.10 TFLOPS vs 7.987 TFLOPS
• FP16: 44.10 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 285 W vs 70 W
• Slot Width: Triple-slot vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: 1x 16-pin vs None
• Suggested PSU: 600 W vs 250 W
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a vs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• Dimensions (Length): 310 mm (12.2 inches) vs 167 mm (6.6 inches)
• Dimensions (Height): 140 mm (5.5 inches) vs 69 mm (2.7 inches)
• Release Date: 2024-01-07 vs 2021-08-09
• Predecessor: GeForce 30 vs Quadro Turing
• Successor: GeForce 50 vs Workstation Ada
• Launch MSRP: 799 USD vs 449 USD

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER wins all three tests, and the margins are substantial. The largest gap appears in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the GeForce card’s score of 5,569 is 314.1% higher than the A2000’s 1,345. This test stresses modern rendering pipelines, and the Ada card’s 66 RT cores and 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput are overwhelming compared to the A2000’s 26 RT cores and 7.987 TFLOPS.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER scores 223,091 versus 73,310, a 204.3% lead. This workload is sensitive to shading unit count and memory bandwidth; the GeForce card has 8,448 shaders and 672.3 GB/s, while the A2000 has 3,328 shaders and 288.0 GB/s. The result is that the Ada card completes compute tasks in roughly one-third of the time. Geekbench Vulkan shows a similar pattern, with the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER at 206,035 and the A2000 at 69,089, a 198.2% difference. Vulkan performance benefits from the same architectural advantages, including the higher boost clock of 2610 MHz versus 1200 MHz.

It is notably the RTX A2000’s average benchmark score of 47,915 is not far from the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s 48,704, but this is due to the limited number of shared tests. The A2000’s benchmark set includes only three tests (Steel Nomad, OpenCL, Vulkan), all of which it loses by large margins. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has additional scores in Passmark tests (e.g., G3D at 31,811 and GPU Compute at 18,372) that are not available for the A2000, which skews the average comparison. The head-to-head data is the more reliable indicator of relative performance.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the superior choice for any workload that demands high-end rendering, compute throughput, or modern API support. Its 314.1% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad and 204.3% lead in OpenCL make it the only option for users who prioritize raw speed in gaming, 3D modeling, or GPU-accelerated compute. With 16 GB of GDDR6X memory and 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, it is a high-end part that also carries a launch MSRP of 799 USD.

The NVIDIA RTX A2000, conversely, is not a performance competitor to the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER. Its 70 W TDP, dual-slot design, and absence of power connectors position it as an embedded or low-profile workstation card. Its 6 GB of memory and 7.987 TFLOPS are sufficient for light to moderate professional use, and its 0.4% edge over the RTX A1000 Mobile (47,915 vs 47,743) shows it is competitive within its own low-power segment. Its launch MSRP of 449 USD reflects this lower capability.

For a user with no space or power constraints, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the only rational pick based on benchmark data. For a user needing a compact, efficient card for basic workstation tasks, the RTX A2000 offers a functional alternative, but it will not deliver the same experience in demanding applications. The verdict is quantitative: the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is roughly three times faster in the tested scenarios, and no amount of efficiency or size advantage can close that gap in performance-centric use cases.