NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two cards compare in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER scores 5569, which is 82.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A1000's 969. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any recorded benchmark.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 has an average benchmark score of 34207, compared to 31087 for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER. Despite this, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER wins all three head-to-head tests.

Q: How do the cards rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: The RTX A1000 sits at the 79th percentile, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits at the 76th percentile. Their nearest rivals tell a similar story: the A1000 is within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon RX 480 and 0.4% of the NVIDIA TITAN V, while the 4070 Ti SUPER trails the NVIDIA TITAN RTX by 1.9%.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a 256-bit bus with 672.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the RTX A1000 has a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s. The 4070 Ti SUPER also uses GDDR6X memory versus GDDR6 in the A1000.

Q: Which card has more RT and tensor cores?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores. The RTX A1000 has 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores. The 4070 Ti SUPER's shading unit count is 8448 versus 2304 for the A1000.

Q: What are the production statuses of the two cards?

A: The RTX A1000 is listed as Active, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is End-of-life. The A1000 was released on April 15, 2024, and the 4070 Ti SUPER on January 23, 2024.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different architectural generations. The RTX A1000 uses the GA107 chip on the Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses the AD103 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die. The transistor density difference is substantial: 43.5M per mm² for the A1000 versus 121.1M per mm² for the 4070 Ti SUPER.

Clock speeds show a similar divide. The A1000 has a base clock of 727 MHz and a boost of 1462 MHz. The 4070 Ti SUPER runs at 2340 MHz base and 2610 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the A1000 uses 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective, while the 4070 Ti SUPER runs at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective.

The compute resources are dramatically different. The A1000 packs 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The 4070 Ti SUPER has 8448 shading units, 264 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 46.78 GPixel/s for the A1000 versus 250.6 GPixel/s for the 4070 Ti SUPER. Texture rates are 105.3 GTexel/s versus 689.0 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance tells a similar story: 6.737 TFLOPS for the A1000 versus 44.10 TFLOPS for the 4070 Ti SUPER. Both offer FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The physical design differs sharply. The A1000 is single-slot, 163 mm long, and 69 mm tall, with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The 4070 Ti SUPER is triple-slot, 310 mm long, 140 mm tall, and 61 mm wide, requiring a 16-pin connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The A1000 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the 4070 Ti SUPER uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER wins all three recorded head-to-head tests, but the margins vary enormously. The biggest blowout comes in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the 4070 Ti SUPER scores 5569 against 969 for the A1000, a delta of 82.6%. This test clearly favors the Ada Lovelace architecture's raw throughput and shading power.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the 4070 Ti SUPER scores 199267 versus 52078 for the A1000, a 73.9% advantage. This is consistent with the FP32 compute difference, since OpenCL workloads tend to scale with shading unit count and clock speed. The 4070 Ti SUPER's 44.10 TFLOPS versus 6.737 TFLOPS gives it roughly six times the raw compute, and the benchmark reflects that scale.

The closest contest is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the 4070 Ti SUPER scores 53683 versus 49574 for the A1000, a delta of just 7.7%. This narrow margin is notable because it is far smaller than the compute difference. Vulkan performance here appears less dependent on raw shading throughput and more on other factors such as driver optimization or memory characteristics. The A1000's 192.0 GB/s bandwidth is clearly sufficient for this particular workload, whereas the 4070 Ti SUPER's 672.3 GB/s does not translate into a proportional gain.

The database shows zero wins for the A1000 and three wins for the 4070 Ti SUPER. The average benchmark scores, however, flip the narrative: the A1000 averages 34207, while the 4070 Ti SUPER averages 31087. This discrepancy comes from the different test suites available for each card. The 4070 Ti SUPER has additional PassMark results, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute scores, which pull its average down. The A1000 only has the three Geekbench and 3DMark results, all of which are relatively strong for its class.

Nearest rival comparisons reinforce this split. The A1000 sits 0.2% above the RTX A2000 12 GB and 0.2% above the RX 560 XT, and 0.6% above the RX 480. The 4070 Ti SUPER trails the Quadro M5000 by 0.4%, the GRID M60-1Q by 0.4%, the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell by 1.4%, and the TITAN RTX by 1.9%. These deltas are all small, indicating that both cards are tightly grouped with their nearest competitors in the database's overall scoring.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and context. For raw 3D rendering performance, particularly DirectX 12 workloads, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the definitive choice. Its 82.6% lead in Steel Nomad and 73.9% lead in OpenCL are decisive. Any workload that leverages shading units, tensor cores, or RT cores will strongly favor the 4070 Ti SUPER.

The RTX A1000, however, holds its own in Vulkan-based tasks. Its 7.7% deficit in Geekbench Vulkan is modest, and its overall average benchmark score is actually higher than the 4070 Ti SUPER's. The A1000 also offers a dramatically lower power profile at 50 W versus 285 W, and its single-slot, connector-free design makes it suitable for compact or passive environments. The 4070 Ti SUPER requires a 16-pin connector, a 600 W PSU, and triple-slot clearance.

Buyers should consider the A1000 if the workload is Vulkan-centric and power or space constraints matter. The card's 79th percentile ranking and average score of 34207 show it is no slouch in the broader database. Buyers who need maximum DirectX performance, larger memory capacity, or higher bandwidth should pick the 4070 Ti SUPER, despite its lower overall percentile and average score. The 4070 Ti SUPER's 16 GB of GDDR6X versus 8 GB of GDDR6 gives it a clear capacity edge, and its 672.3 GB/s bandwidth is more than triple the A1000's.

The 4070 Ti SUPER also has a launch MSRP of 799 USD, which the database records, but its end-of-life status suggests availability may shift. The A1000 remains active and was released later. For longevity, the A1000 has active production status, while the 4070 Ti SUPER does not. For performance density, the 4070 Ti SUPER is the clear winner, but the A1000's efficiency and form factor make it a specialized tool rather than a direct competitor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A1000 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER |

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

| Chip | GA107 | AD103 |

| Architecture | Ampere | Ada Lovelace |

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

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 45,900 million |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 379 mm² |

| Transistor density | 43.5M / mm² | 121.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 727 MHz | 2340 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1462 MHz | 2610 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 8 GB GDDR6 | 16 GB GDDR6X |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 672.3 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2304 | 8448 |

| TMUs | 72 | 264 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| RT cores | 18 | 66 |

| Tensor cores | 72 | 264 |

| Pixel rate | 46.78 GPixel/s | 250.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 105.3 GTexel/s | 689.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.737 TFLOPS | 44.10 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1) | 44.10 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 285 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Triple-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 600 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

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

| Dimensions | 163 mm x 69 mm | 310 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release date | April 15, 2024 | January 23, 2024 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | GeForce 30 |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | GeForce 50 |