NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the RTX A400 occupy opposite ends of NVIDIA’s current GPU lineup, and the data makes that split brutally clear. The 5070 Ti SUPER posts an average benchmark score of 6270, while the A400 averages 6078. That gap is real, but it is not the whole story — the A400’s average is dragged down by legacy DirectX 9 and 10 tests, while its modern API scores tell a different tale. Before choosing, you need to understand that these are not competing products; they are different tools for different jobs, and the benchmark data reflects that.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single shared benchmark between these two cards is not a direct comparison, which complicates a simple head-to-head. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has only one submitted benchmark: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 6269.5. The RTX A400 has no equivalent Steel Nomad result. Instead, the A400’s strongest modern-API results come from Geekbench: 22844 in OpenCL and 22237 in Vulkan. The 5070 Ti SUPER’s 6269.5 in a DX12 workload is a high-end result, placing it in the 36th percentile of all GPUs — but note that percentile is not a ranking of raw score; it reflects how many submitted results it beats. The A400 also sits at the 35th percentile, meaning both cards land near the middle of the database’s distribution despite their massive performance difference in absolute terms.

Looking at the rivals list clarifies the picture. The 5070 Ti SUPER’s nearest rival is the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, with a delta of 0% — they score identically at 6270. The A400’s nearest rival is the GeForce MX230, also at 0% delta with a score of 6077. So the 5070 Ti SUPER is effectively tied with a high-end 40-series card, while the A400 is tied with a low-end laptop GPU. In raw compute terms, the 5070 Ti SUPER delivers 43.94 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS — a 16.2x advantage. That is the headline number. The A400’s best modern API score, 22844 in Geekbench OpenCL, sounds large, but it is a different test with a different scale. The PassMark G3D score of 5983 for the A400 gives another reference point. The 5070 Ti SUPER does not have a PassMark result listed, so the only direct numerical comparison available is through the averages and the rivals.

The A400 does win in one specific metric: its Geekbench Vulkan score of 22237 versus its own OpenCL score of 22844 shows the architecture handles both APIs competently. But against the 5070 Ti SUPER, there is no contest in any modern workload. The A400’s PassMark results are telling: DirectX 9 at 87, DirectX 10 at 32, DirectX 11 at 37, DirectX 12 at 27. Those numbers are catastrophically low next to any modern GPU. The 5070 Ti SUPER’s single Steel Nomad score of 6269.5 is a DX12 result, and it is more than 200x higher than the A400’s PassMark DX12 score of 27 — though again, different tests, so treat that ratio as illustrative, not exact.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations and foundries. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER uses the GB203 chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 45,600 million transistors into a 378 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 120.6M per mm². The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip on Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It has 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5M per mm². That is a 5.2x transistor count difference and a 2.8x density difference, which explains a lot about the performance gap.

Memory is another chasm. The 5070 Ti SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 96.00 GB/s. That is a 9.3x bandwidth advantage for the 5070 Ti SUPER. The A400’s memory clock is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus the 5070 Ti SUPER’s 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The 5070 Ti SUPER also has vastly more compute resources: 8960 shading units, 280 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 70 RT cores, and 280 tensor cores. The A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and 24 tensor cores. That is roughly 11.7x more shaders and 11.7x more tensor cores for the 5070 Ti SUPER.

Power and physical design diverge equally. The 5070 Ti SUPER is a 350 W dual-slot card requiring a 1x 16-pin power connector, measuring 304 mm long and 137 mm tall. The A400 is a 50 W single-slot card with no power connector — it draws power entirely from the PCIe slot — and measures 163 mm long and 69 mm tall. The suggested PSU for the A400 is 250 W; the 5070 Ti SUPER’s suggested PSU is not listed, but the 350 W TDP tells you what you need. The 5070 Ti SUPER uses PCIe 5.0 x16, the A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs differ: the 5070 Ti SUPER has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b, while the A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER wins everywhere that raw performance matters. In FP32 compute, it delivers 43.94 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS — a 16.2x lead. Pixel rate is 235.4 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 686.6 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. If your workload is 3D rendering, AI inference, or high-refresh gaming, the data leaves no ambiguity. The 5070 Ti SUPER’s 16 GB of GDDR7 memory with 896 GB/s bandwidth means it can hold large textures, models, or datasets in VRAM, while the A400’s 4 GB and 96 GB/s will bottleneck almost any modern professional task.

The RTX A400 wins in a different category: physical integration and power efficiency. It draws 50 W versus 350 W — a 7x difference — and requires no external power connector. It is a single-slot card at 163 mm, making it suitable for small form factor or multi-card setups where space and power are constrained. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-display configurations, which is a common requirement in digital signage, basic CAD viewing, or as a secondary output card. The A400’s PassMark G2D score of 899 is actually its highest PassMark result, suggesting it handles 2D desktop workloads better than 3D — a sign it is intended for basic display output rather than compute.

For modern API support, both cards list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. So the A400 is not lacking in API compatibility — it is lacking in execution resources. The A400’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 22237 shows it can run Vulkan workloads, but at a fraction of the 5070 Ti SUPER’s capability. The 5070 Ti SUPER has no listed Geekbench results, so a direct comparison there is impossible, but the FP32 and memory bandwidth figures make the outcome predictable.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER. It delivers 43.94 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the RTX A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS, a 16.2x advantage. Its texture rate is 686.6 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s, and pixel rate is 235.4 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s.

Q: Can the RTX A400 handle modern games?

A: The data suggests no. Its PassMark DirectX 12 score is 27, DirectX 11 is 37, and DirectX 9 is 87. Those are extremely low scores even for legacy APIs. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory and 96 GB/s bandwidth are far below what modern games require.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The 5070 Ti SUPER has 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus. The A400 has 96.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. That is a 9.3x bandwidth advantage for the 5070 Ti SUPER.

Q: Which card is better for a multi-display workstation setup?

A: The RTX A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which is more display outputs than the 5070 Ti SUPER’s 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The A400 also draws only 50 W and needs no power connector, making it easier to slot into a workstation.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 5070 Ti SUPER scores 6270, tied with the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 at 0% delta. The A400 scores 6078, tied with the GeForce MX230 at 0% delta. The A400 is also 0.5% ahead of the Quadro P2000 and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The 5070 Ti SUPER has a TDP of 350 W and requires a 1x 16-pin power connector. The A400 has a TDP of 50 W and has no power connector — it runs off the PCIe slot, with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is for anyone who needs serious compute, and the RTX A400 is for anyone who needs a low-power display adapter. The 5070 Ti SUPER’s 43.94 TFLOPS, 16 GB of GDDR7, and 896 GB/s bandwidth make it the only choice for 3D rendering, AI workloads, or high-end gaming. Its 350 W TDP and dual-slot size are the cost of that performance. The A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS and 4 GB of GDDR6 make it unsuitable for anything beyond basic 2D output or very light 3D, but its 50 W draw, single-slot profile, and no power connector make it trivial to install in nearly any system.

If you are building a workstation and the primary task is pushing pixels or training models, the 5070 Ti SUPER wins on every technical metric that matters. If you are adding a card solely to drive four monitors at 4K for office work or as a secondary display, the A400’s 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs and minimal power requirements are the deciding factors. The 5070 Ti SUPER’s launch MSRP is 749 USD. The A400 has no listed launch MSRP. Neither card is a substitute for the other, and the benchmark data confirms they target completely different markets.

Specification Differences

| Specification | RTX 5070 Ti SUPER | RTX A400 |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 45,600 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 378 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 120.6M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2295 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2452 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB GDDR7 | 4 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 896.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 8960 | 768 |

| TMUs | 280 | 24 |

| ROPs | 96 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 70 | 6 |

| Tensor Cores | 280 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 235.4 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 686.6 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 43.94 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 350 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | 304 mm x 137 mm x 48 mm | 163 mm x 69 mm (width not listed) |