AMD Radeon RX 7700 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 versus the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. The RX 7700 has a full benchmark suite recorded, while the Rubin GPU has no recorded benchmark scores in the database at all. This makes a direct numerical comparison of test results impossible. Instead, the analysis must rely on the recorded specification data, architectural characteristics, and the RX 7700's position relative to its own nearest rivals.

The RX 7700's recorded average benchmark score is 15852. Its percentile rank among all GPUs in the database is 58, meaning it sits slightly above the midpoint of all recorded graphics cards. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon R9 370X with an average score of 15862 and a delta of -0.1%, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 with an average score of 16014 and a delta of -1%, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 with an average score of 15679 and a delta of 1.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti with an average score of 16129 and a delta of -1.7%. These deltas are all within a narrow band of roughly two percentage points, indicating that the RX 7700 sits in a crowded performance tier where small margins separate cards.

The RX 7700's individual benchmark scores show a wide spread across different test types. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 2865. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 106028. Passmark results include DirectX 10 at 92, DirectX 11 at 186, DirectX 12 at 96, DirectX 9 at 261, G2D at 1206, G3D at 20974, and GPU compute at 10963. The G3D score of 20974 is the most representative of general rasterization performance, while the compute score of 10963 reflects its compute throughput capabilities.

The Rubin GPU's benchmark array is empty, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0. Its percentile rank is 50, which is a placeholder value rather than a measured result. No nearest rivals are listed for the Rubin GPU. The database thus provides no empirical performance data for the Rubin GPU, so any comparison of measured scores is not possible.

What the data does provide is a stark contrast in raw compute specifications. The RX 7700 delivers 25.18 TFLOPS FP32 and the same 25.18 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. That is approximately 5.2 times higher FP32 throughput for the Rubin GPU based on the recorded figures, and about 10.3 times higher FP16 throughput. The texture rate for the RX 7700 is 393.4 GTexel/s, while the Rubin GPU records 2,031.2 GTexel/s, roughly 5.2 times higher. The pixel rate, however, is reversed: the RX 7700 records 236.1 GPixel/s, while the Rubin GPU records only 54.41 GPixel/s, meaning the RX 7700 has a higher pixel fill rate by a factor of about 4.3.

Memory bandwidth also shows a massive divergence. The RX 7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth. That is roughly 35.4 times more bandwidth for the Rubin GPU, and 18 times more memory capacity. These figures indicate two entirely different performance profiles, with the Rubin GPU designed for massive parallel compute and memory throughput, while the RX 7700 is oriented toward conventional raster graphics work.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7700 wins clearly in scenarios that rely on pixel output. Its pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s is more than four times the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s. This suggests the RX 7700 is better suited for traditional display rendering, especially at high resolutions where pixel throughput matters. Its ROP count of 96 compared to the Rubin GPU's 24 ROPs reinforces this advantage. The RX 7700 also has display outputs, including 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C, while the Rubin GPU has no display outputs at all. The Rubin GPU cannot drive a monitor directly.

The RX 7700 also wins on DirectX and OpenGL compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, meaning it does not support these graphics APIs. This makes the RX 7700 the only one of the two that can run standard PC games and workstation graphics applications that depend on these APIs.

The Rubin GPU wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 of 130.0 TFLOPS is roughly 5.2 times the RX 7700's 25.18 TFLOPS. Its FP16 of 260.0 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio is about 10.3 times the RX 7700's FP16 of 25.18 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Rubin GPU's tensor cores, 896 of them, provide dedicated hardware for matrix operations, which the RX 7700 lacks entirely, as its tensor core count is null. The texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s on the Rubin GPU is roughly 5.2 times the RX 7700's 393.4 GTexel/s, which helps in workloads that sample textures heavily, such as certain simulation or rendering tasks.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are clear wins for the Rubin GPU. With 288 GB of HBM4 and 22.1 TB/s bandwidth, it is designed for large datasets and high-throughput memory access patterns. The RX 7700's 16 GB and 624.1 GB/s are modest by comparison. Workloads that fit within 16 GB may run on the RX 7700, but anything larger requires the Rubin GPU's capacity.

The power envelope also separates them. The RX 7700 has a TDP of 200 W, while the Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2300 W. The RX 7700 uses dual 2x 8-pin power connectors and suggests a 550 W PSU. The Rubin GPU uses an SXM module form factor with no discrete power connectors and suggests a 2700 W PSU. This makes the RX 7700 practical for a standard desktop build, while the Rubin GPU requires a server platform with dedicated power delivery.

Architecture Differences

The RX 7700 uses the Navi 32 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Wheat Nas. It belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation and the Radeon RX 7000 series. The Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip built on the Rubin architecture, belonging to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation. The process nodes differ: the RX 7700 uses TSMC's 5 nm process, while the Rubin GPU uses TSMC's 3 nm process. The transistor counts are vastly different, with the RX 7700 at 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 81.2M per mm². The Rubin GPU has 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die, giving a density of 230.8M per mm². The Rubin GPU's die is roughly 4.2 times larger and packs about 12 times the transistors, with a density that is about 2.8 times higher.

The RX 7700 has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. It has no tensor cores. The Rubin GPU has 28672 shading units, 896 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, and 896 tensor cores. Its ray tracing core count is null in the database. The shading unit count on the Rubin GPU is roughly 11.2 times higher, and the tensor core count is 896 versus none on the RX 7700.

Clock speeds show different strategies. The RX 7700 has a base clock of 1900 MHz, a boost clock of 2459 MHz, and a game clock of 2041 MHz. The Rubin GPU has a base clock of 700 MHz and a boost clock of 2267 MHz, with no game clock recorded. The RX 7700 runs at higher base and boost frequencies, which helps its pixel and texture rates despite having fewer cores. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 7700 runs at 2438 MHz with 19.5 Gbps effective, while the Rubin GPU runs at 2695 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective. The Rubin GPU's effective data rate is lower, but its enormous bus width of 16384 bits versus 256 bits compensates to produce the much higher bandwidth.

The RX 7700 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface, while the Rubin GPU uses PCIe 6.0 x16. The RX 7700 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 135 mm in height, and 50 mm in width. The Rubin GPU has no recorded dimensions and comes as an SXM module, which is a server form factor. The RX 7700 has display outputs and supports standard graphics APIs, while the Rubin GPU has no outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

The production status for both is Active. The RX 7700 has a release date of 2025-09-17, while the Rubin GPU has a release date of 2025-12-31. The RX 7700 lists its predecessor as Navi II and successor as Navi IV. The Rubin GPU lists its predecessor as Server Blackwell and has no successor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Does the NVIDIA Rubin GPU have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the Rubin GPU's benchmark array is empty, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Rubin GPU records 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, which is about 5.2 times the RX 7700's 25.18 TFLOPS.

Q: Can the NVIDIA Rubin GPU output to a display?

A: No, it has no display outputs, while the RX 7700 has 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the RX 7700, which records DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Rubin GPU records N/A for DirectX.

Q: What memory types do the two GPUs use?

A: The RX 7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus.

Q: What are the TDP figures for each GPU?

A: The RX 7700 has a TDP of 200 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2300 W with a suggested PSU of 2700 W.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification. The RX 7700 has a process node of 5 nm, while the Rubin GPU uses 3 nm. Transistors: 28,100 million versus 336,000 million. Die size: 346 mm² versus 1456 mm². Transistor density: 81.2M per mm² versus 230.8M per mm². Base clock: 1900 MHz versus 700 MHz. Boost clock: 2459 MHz versus 2267 MHz. Game clock: 2041 MHz for the RX 7700, null for the Rubin GPU. Memory clock: 2438 MHz with 19.5 Gbps effective versus 2695 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective. Memory size: 16 GB versus 288 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM4. Bus width: 256 bit versus 16384 bit. Bandwidth: 624.1 GB/s versus 22.1 TB/s. Shading units: 2560 versus 28672. TMUs: 160 versus 896. ROPs: 96 versus 24. RT cores: 40 versus null. Tensor cores: null versus 896. Pixel rate: 236.1 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 393.4 GTexel/s versus 2,031.2 GTexel/s. FP32: 25.18 TFLOPS versus 130.0 TFLOPS. FP16: 25.18 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 200 W versus 2300 W. Slot width: Dual-slot versus SXM Module. Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus null. Suggested PSU: 550 W versus 2700 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C versus no outputs. DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A. OpenGL: 4.6 versus N/A. Vulkan: 1.4 versus N/A. Dimensions: 267 mm length, 135 mm height, 50 mm width versus null for all.

The Verdict

The data points to two completely different product categories. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is a conventional desktop graphics card with full display support, modern graphics APIs, and a modest power draw of 200 W. It fits into a standard dual-slot PCIe 4.0 slot, uses two 8-pin connectors, and can drive monitors through HDMI 2.1a or DisplayPort 2.1. Its benchmark scores place it near the AMD Radeon R9 370X, AMD Radeon RX 9060, AMD Radeon Pro W5500, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, all within roughly two percentage points of its average score of 15852. For a builder assembling a gaming or workstation PC, the RX 7700 is the only viable choice between these two.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server accelerator with no display outputs, no DirectX/OpenGL/Vulkan support, and a 2300 W power requirement. Its 288 GB of HBM4 memory and 22.1 TB/s bandwidth, along with 896 tensor cores and 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, indicate a design for large-scale compute workloads such as training or inference, not for rendering to a screen. The SXM module form factor and PCIe 6.0 interface target rack-mounted server platforms, not desktop systems.

The RX 7700 wins for any task that requires pixel output or standard graphics API compatibility. Its 236.1 GPixel/s pixel rate and 96 ROPs give it a clear edge in rasterization. The Rubin GPU wins for compute density, offering roughly 5.2 times the FP32 throughput, about 10.3 times the FP16 throughput, and about 35.4 times the memory bandwidth. The choice depends entirely on the workload: a desktop user should select the RX 7700, while a data center operator running compute jobs that fit within the Rubin GPU's server framework should select the Rubin GPU. The two do not compete in the same market segment, and the recorded data confirms that.