NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two cards: 3DMark Steel Nomad, a DirectX 12 test. The results are decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 scores 18,355 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER scores 6,269.5 points. This represents a 65.8% advantage for the RTX 5090 in the database's head-to-head comparison, meaning the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER trails by that exact margin in this specific workload.

The RTX 5090's score places it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, a strong showing for a flagship part. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, by contrast, sits in the 36th percentile. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests tells a similar story from a different angle: the RTX 5090 holds an average of 79,842 points across its full benchmark suite, while the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER's average is 6,270. This massive gap in average score reflects both the raw performance difference and the fact that the RTX 5090 has a broader set of recorded results, including compute and legacy DirectX tests.

Looking at the nearest rivals recorded for each card provides additional context. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER's closest competitor in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, with an identical average score of 6,270 and a delta of 0%. The AMD FirePro W600 sits 0.8% ahead, while the AMD Radeon R7 M350 trails by 0.9%. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 is 0.2% ahead. These deltas are small enough to suggest the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is positioned in a tightly contested segment of the database.

For the RTX 5090, the nearest rivals are professional and mobile parts. The NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB is 0.3% behind, the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB is 0.6% behind, and the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT is 1.1% behind. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X leads the RTX 5090 by 1.4%. None of these rivals approach the RTX 5090's 3DMark Steel Nomad result, which suggests that specific test rewards the architecture's strengths more than the average score does.

The RTX 5090 also has recorded results in Geekbench OpenCL (334,370), Geekbench Vulkan (376,728), and Passmark GPU Compute (26,756). These figures indicate strong general-purpose and compute performance, though no comparable numbers exist for the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER in those tests within the database. The Passmark legacy DirectX results for the RTX 5090, including DirectX 9 at 395 and DirectX 11 at 341, show that even older API workloads run at respectable levels, though the DirectX 12 score of 185 is notably lower than the DirectX 11 result.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the Blackwell 2.0 architecture and are built by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but they are otherwise very different silicon. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER uses the GB203 chip with 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 120.6 million per mm². The RTX 5090 uses the GB202 chip with 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, yielding a density of 122.9 million per mm². The RTX 5090 packs roughly twice the transistors into nearly twice the die area.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has 8,960 shading units, 280 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The RTX 5090 has 21,760 shading units, 680 TMUs, and 176 ROPs. The RTX 5090's pixel rate is 423.6 GPixel/s versus 235.4 GPixel/s for the smaller card, and its texture rate is 1,636.8 GTexel/s versus 686.6 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 104.8 TFLOPS for the RTX 5090 and 43.94 TFLOPS for the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, with FP16 matching FP32 at a 1:1 ratio on both.

Ray tracing and tensor hardware also differ. The RTX 5090 carries 170 RT cores and 680 tensor cores, while the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has 70 RT cores and 280 tensor cores. The clock speeds are not identical either: the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER runs at a 2,295 MHz base and 2,452 MHz boost, while the RTX 5090 has a lower 2,017 MHz base but a 2,407 MHz boost. The smaller chip boosts slightly higher, but the RTX 5090's massive core count more than compensates.

Memory is a major differentiator. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5090 has 32 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s. Both run at the same 1,750 MHz memory clock with 28 Gbps effective data rate. The RTX 5090's bandwidth advantage is roughly double, consistent with its wider bus and larger capacity.

Power and physical design differ as well. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has a TDP of 350 W, while the RTX 5090 has a TDP of 575 W. The RTX 5090's suggested PSU is 950 W, and the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has no recorded suggested PSU. Both use a single 16-pin power connector and are dual-slot cards. The RTX 5090 is thinner at 40 mm width versus 48 mm for the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, but both are 304 mm long and 137 mm tall. Display outputs are identical on paper: one HDMI 2.1b and three DisplayPort 2.1b, though the RTX 5090's listing shows no space between the HDMI and DisplayPort entries.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The RTX 5090 was released earlier in its cycle, with a recorded date in January 2025, while the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER's release date is near the end of 2025. The RTX 5090 lists a predecessor in GeForce 40 and a successor in GeForce 60, while the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has no recorded predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The data positions these two cards in entirely different performance classes. The RTX 5090 wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 65.8%, and its average benchmark score of 79,842 is more than twelve times the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER's average of 6,270. The RTX 5090 sits in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER sits in the 36th percentile.

The RTX 5090's hardware advantages are consistent across every measured dimension: more than double the shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, tensor cores, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput is 104.8 TFLOPS versus 43.94 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate is 423.6 GPixel/s versus 235.4 GPixel/s. Its texture rate is 1,636.8 GTexel/s versus 686.6 GTexel/s. The transistor count is 92,200 million versus 45,600 million.

The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER does have some points in its favor. It boosts to a higher clock speed at 2,452 MHz versus 2,407 MHz. It draws 350 W versus 575 W, which is a substantial power reduction. It is slightly thicker at 48 mm versus 40 mm, but that does not affect performance. Its launch MSRP is 749 USD, while the RTX 5090's launch MSRP is 1,999 USD. The smaller card also has a higher transistor density on paper at 120.6M per mm² versus 122.9M per mm² for the larger chip, though the difference is marginal.

For users who need maximum rasterization and compute throughput, the RTX 5090 is the clear choice based on the recorded benchmarks. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is positioned for those who require Blackwell 2.0 features with lower power draw and a smaller die. The data shows no scenario in the head-to-head test where the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER outperforms the RTX 5090.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference in the recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The RTX 5090 scores 18,355 in 3DMark Steel Nomad versus 6,269.5 for the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, a 65.8% advantage for the RTX 5090.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus with 896.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5090 has 32 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus with 1.79 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units and RT cores?

A: The RTX 5090 has 21,760 shading units and 170 RT cores. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has 8,960 shading units and 70 RT cores.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has a TDP of 350 W. The RTX 5090 has a TDP of 575 W and a suggested PSU of 950 W.

Q: Do both cards use the same memory type?

A: Yes, both use GDDR7 memory at 1,750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective data rate, though the bus widths differ at 256-bit versus 512-bit.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card in the database?

A: The RTX 5090 is in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is in the 36th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5090 wins in every measured performance category. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score is 18,355, and its average benchmark score is 79,842. The RTX 5090 also has recorded wins in Geekbench OpenCL at 334,370, Geekbench Vulkan at 376,728, and Passmark GPU Compute at 26,756. It leads in FP32 throughput at 104.8 TFLOPS, pixel rate at 423.6 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 1,636.8 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s and capacity of 32 GB give it a clear edge in memory-heavy workloads.

The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER wins in efficiency-oriented metrics. Its TDP of 350 W is 225 W lower than the RTX 5090's 575 W. It boosts higher at 2,452 MHz versus 2,407 MHz. Its die is smaller at 378 mm² versus 750 mm², and its transistor count is lower at 45,600 million versus 92,200 million. Its launch MSRP of 749 USD is lower than the RTX 5090's 1,999 USD. The narrower 48 mm width versus 40 mm does not represent a practical win, but the lower power draw and smaller silicon footprint are real advantages for constrained builds.

The nearest rivals in the database reinforce the separation. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER trades nearly identical average scores with the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, the AMD FirePro W600, and the AMD Radeon R7 M350, all within 0.9% of each other. The RTX 5090 sits within 1.4% of the Tesla P100 variants and the Radeon RX 6850M XT, a group of substantially older or mobile parts. The RTX 5090's lead over its rival group is comparable to the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER's position, but the absolute scores are an order of magnitude apart.

The data indicates that the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is a mid-range Blackwell card with a strong feature set, while the RTX 5090 is a flagship that doubles the core count, memory, and bandwidth. Users with workloads that scale with shading units, tensor cores, or memory bandwidth will find the RTX 5090 decisively ahead. Users prioritizing lower power draw and a smaller die will find the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER the more restrained option, but the performance gap in the recorded benchmarks is unambiguous.