GeForce RTX 3070 Ti vs Radeon RX 5700M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5700M with GeForce RTX 3070 Ti, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3070 Ti outperforms RX 5700M by a whopping 1366% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 704 | 40 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 83 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 52.71 |
| Power efficiency | 1.57 | 14.30 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | GA104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 March 2020 (5 years ago) | 31 May 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 6144 |
| Core clock speed | 1465 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1720 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 17,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 290 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 247.7 | 339.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.926 TFLOPS | 21.75 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 96 |
| TMUs | 144 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 12-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1188 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | 608.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 10−12
−1620%
| 172
+1620%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−1467%
| 94
+1467%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−1375%
| 59
+1375%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.48 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.37 |
| 4K | no data | 10.15 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 178 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−4467%
|
130−140
+4467%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 141 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−21700%
|
210−220
+21700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−4467%
|
130−140
+4467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2833%
|
170−180
+2833%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1188%
|
300−350
+1188%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−3375%
|
270−280
+3375%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 124 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−3457%
|
249
+3457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−21700%
|
210−220
+21700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−4467%
|
130−140
+4467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2833%
|
170−180
+2833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−5780%
|
294
+5780%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1188%
|
300−350
+1188%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 113 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−3186%
|
230
+3186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−21700%
|
210−220
+21700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−4467%
|
130−140
+4467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2833%
|
170−180
+2833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2780%
|
144
+2780%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1188%
|
300−350
+1188%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−7400%
|
150
+7400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 70−75 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−11200%
|
113
+11200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−880%
|
147
+880%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 300−350 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2633%
|
82
+2633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−9500%
|
95−100
+9500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 350
+0%
|
350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 337
+0%
|
337
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 205
+0%
|
205
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 210
+0%
|
210
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 266
+0%
|
266
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 196
+0%
|
196
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 196
+0%
|
196
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 183
+0%
|
183
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160
+0%
|
160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 137
+0%
|
137
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 194
+0%
|
194
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how RX 5700M and RTX 3070 Ti compete in popular games:
- RTX 3070 Ti is 1620% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3070 Ti is 1467% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3070 Ti is 1375% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 3070 Ti is 21700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3070 Ti is ahead in 24 tests (40%)
- there's a draw in 36 tests (60%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.00 | 58.63 |
| Recency | 1 March 2020 | 31 May 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 290 Watt |
RX 5700M has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 61.1% lower power consumption.
RTX 3070 Ti, on the other hand, has a 1365.8% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
The GeForce RTX 3070 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 5700M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5700M is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3070 Ti is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
