AMD Radeon RX 7900M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon RX 7900M and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon RX 7900M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 22% higher core clock speed: 1825 MHz vs 1500 MHz
- Around 21% higher boost clock speed: 2090 MHz vs 1725 MHz
- Around 90% higher texture fill rate: 601.9 GTexel/s vs 317.4 GTexel/s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 5 nm vs 8 nm
- Around 22% lower typical power consumption: 180 Watt vs 220 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 16 GB vs 8 GB
- Around 29% higher memory clock speed: 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective vs 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective
- Around 4% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 23115 vs 22313
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 19 Oct 2023 vs 1 Sep 2020 |
Core clock speed | 1825 MHz vs 1500 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 2090 MHz vs 1725 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 601.9 GTexel/s vs 317.4 GTexel/s |
Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm vs 8 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 180 Watt vs 220 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 16 GB vs 8 GB |
Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective vs 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 23115 vs 22313 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070
- Around 28% higher pipelines: 5888 vs 4608
- Around 7% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 997 vs 933
- Around 4% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 123479 vs 118813
Specifications (specs) | |
Pipelines | 5888 vs 4608 |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 997 vs 933 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 123479 vs 118813 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon RX 7900M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon RX 7900M | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G2D Mark | 933 | 997 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 23115 | 22313 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 118813 | 123479 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 453.922 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 5803.174 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 40.757 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 182.055 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1664.554 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 31716 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 13566 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 31930 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 31716 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 13566 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 31930 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 13654 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon RX 7900M | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ampere |
Code name | Navi 31 | GA104 |
Launch date | 19 Oct 2023 | 1 Sep 2020 |
Place in performance rating | 40 | 43 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | |
Type | Desktop | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 2090 MHz | 1725 MHz |
Compute units | 72 | |
Core clock speed | 1825 MHz | 1500 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 8 nm |
Pipelines | 4608 | 5888 |
Pixel fill rate | 267.5 GPixel/s | 165.6 GPixel/s |
Texture fill rate | 601.9 GTexel/s | 317.4 GTexel/s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 180 Watt | 220 Watt |
Transistor count | 57700 million | 17400 million |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 317.4 GFLOPS (1:64) | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 20.31 TFLOPS (1:1) | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 20.31 TFLOPS | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Form factor | IGP | Dual-slot |
Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 12-pin |
Height | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | |
Length | 242 mm, 9.5 inches | |
Recommended system power (PSU) | 550 Watt | |
Width | 112 mm, 4.4 inches | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
OpenCL | 2.2 | 3.0 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.7 |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
Memory bus width | 256 bit | 256 bit |
Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |
Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |