OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,290VRAM:32 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):300 W

AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 15 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700
7.9/10

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 69% of models
Score components

40%

8.3

Technical score

25%

8.0

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

7.3

Sentiment score

▲Better than 69% of graphics cards
6.6

Value for money

Value for money
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

3.7

Price

▼Worse than 85%
8.3

Technical score

Technical score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 73% of models
Score components

44%

8.3

Performance

24%

8.6

Memory

12%

5.9

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

9.8

Connectivity

▲Better than 73%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 51% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.8

Popularity

Grades by review (15)
5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▲Better than 51%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-radeon-ai-pro-r9700
amd-radeon-ai-pro-r9700
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,290
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700

Based on 5 · 11

Reviewers praise the large video memory and strong AI performance, but complain about noise and weak gaming results.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700

Based on 59 owners sharing their experience in online comments

64%positive11%mixed25%negative

Owners praise AI performance and ample memory, while software support and slower results against rivals remain the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Many AI frameworks and tools lack AMD support, and on Windows or ROCm 7.1 owners report crashes in ComfyUI, AI Toolkit, LM Studio and vLLM.6
  • Owners comparing it with Nvidia cards report much slower token speeds and prefill, with one reporting about 6x slower ComfyUI than a 5070 Ti.3
  • Some games are capped at 60fps, and owners say ray tracing slows gaming noticeably, so it suits gaming less than AI work.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700

Technical score
Technical score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 73% of models
Score components:

44%

8.3

Performance

24%

8.6

Memory

12%

5.9

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

9.8

Connectivity

8.3
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

3.7

Price

6.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
12,225 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 12,225 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 61.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
32,860 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 32,860 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 82.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
17,260 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 17,260 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 67.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
47.8 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 47.8 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 80.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
32 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 32 GB of VRAM, which is more than 96.6% of graphics cards and equal to 3.1% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
640 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 640 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 66.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.9% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
20,100 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 20,100 MHz, which is faster than that of 61% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
5
This graphics card supports PCIe 5, which is newer than on 73% of graphics cards and equal to 27% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
2.1a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2.1a, which is more advanced than on 74.2% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
54 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 54 Gbps, which is faster than on 78.8% of graphics cards and equal to 4.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
300 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 300 W, which is higher than that of 72.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
400 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 400 W under peak load, which is higher than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
750 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 750 W PSU, which is higher than that of 65.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 16.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
300 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 300 W, which is higher than that of 68.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
300 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
267x 111x 40 mm
Length
267 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 267 mm long, which is shorter than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 3.5% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,069 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,069 g, which is heavier than 52.8% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 16.6% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,920 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,920 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 20 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (32 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    32 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (128 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    128 vs 64
  • 2.32x higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (373.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    373.76 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 97.8% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (747.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    747.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 24 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (64 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    64 vs 40
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 24 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (64 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    64 vs 40
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 51% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (15)
    5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 16.6% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,920 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,920 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 64 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (128 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    128 vs 64
  • 2.32x higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (373.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    373.76 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 97.8% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (747.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    747.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 24 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (64 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    64 vs 40
  • 24 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (64 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    64 vs 40
  • 2.12x higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (47.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    47.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 72 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (256 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    256 vs 184
  • 45.2% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (32,860 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    32,860 points vs 22,638 points
  • 2 years newer
    This graphics card was released more recently than the average graphics card (2025 vs 2023).
    July 2025
    2025 vs 2023
  • 6.47x higher FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP16 performance than the average graphics card (191 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    191 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3.13x higher FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP64 performance than the average graphics card (1.5 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    1.5 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 5.38x higher BF16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher BF16 performance than the average graphics card (191 TFLOPS vs 35.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has BF16 performance of 35.48 TFLOPS.
    191 TFLOPS vs 35.48 TFLOPS
  • 3.17x higher INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a higher INT8 performance than the average graphics card (766 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    766 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 20 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (32 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    32 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 42.9% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (640 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    640 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 16x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (64 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    64 MB vs 4 MB
  • 5.8% faster memory speed
    This graphics card has a higher effective memory speed than the average graphics card (20,100 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    20,100 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • Newer PCIe version
    This graphics card supports a newer PCIe version than the average graphics card (5 vs 4).
    5 vs 4
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2.35x more transistors
    This graphics card has more transistors than the average graphics card (53,900 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    53,900 million vs 22,900 million
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1a vs 1.4a).
    2.1a vs 1.4a
  • Newer HDMI version
    This graphics card supports a newer HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1b vs 2.1a).
    2.1b vs 2.1a
  • 2.5x higher DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (54 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    54 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 39.5% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (300 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    300 W vs 215 W
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 2.48x more expensive
    AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,290 vs £520).
    £1,290 vs £520
  • 11.5% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.65 vs 7.4).
    6.65 vs 7.41
  • 6.4% lower sentiment score
    7.3 vs 7.8
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 13.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,660 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,660 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 16 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (128 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    128 vs 144
  • 17.3% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (12,225 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    12,225 points vs 14,779 points
  • 75% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (32 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    32 KB vs 128 KB
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (8 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    8 MB vs 24 MB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 39.5% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (300 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    300 W vs 215 W
  • 15.4% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (750 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    750 W vs 650 W
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 36.4% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (300 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    300 W vs 220 W
  • 22.5 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (57.9 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    57.9 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 3.33x higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (40 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    40 W vs 12 W
  • 81.8% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (400 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    400 W vs 220 W
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
Harkirat Singh
≈ estimated
07/10/2026
Hands-on test · local coding and video models
Verdict
AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is worth buying for local AI if your workloads suit open-source models; otherwise it depends on your needs.
9.0
GLITCHED
≈ estimated
06/08/2026
Hands-on review · AI models, Blender and games
Verdict
AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is the best consumer card for AI workloads, though it gets loud under load and is overkill for gaming.
7.0
Spronglehump's Laboratory
≈ estimated
17/05/2026
Hands-on benchmarks · quad-GPU server with llama.cpp
Verdict
AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 offers decent value for its VRAM, though speed on some models and software support lag behind.
5.0
Haizy Tiles
≈ estimated
25/01/2026
Hands-on setup report · ComfyUI on Windows and Linux
Verdict
AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a card I would not buy again: ComfyUI struggled on Windows, and only Linux gave a reliable setup.
7.0
Tech Notice
≈ estimated
15/01/2026
Hands-on review · AI, power and media engine tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is great for AI work thanks to its 32 GB of memory, but it's not very impressive for gaming or consumer use.
8.0
Donato Capitella
≈ estimated
04/01/2026
Hands-on tests · image and video generation workflows
Verdict
AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 runs ComfyUI reliably on a single card for these workflows, though some video results disappoint.
9.0
Level1Techs
≈ estimated
27/10/2025
Hands-on review · AI inference, creative apps and Linux tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 suits AI and creative work that doesn't need CUDA, and its performance is strong for the price.
5.0
Jason's Tech Trials
≈ estimated
21/08/2025
Hands-on review · AI setup, text generation and video tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is hard to recommend yet: setup is difficult, though text generation works well thanks to its large memory.
Not graded
Shop video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
phoronix.com
≈ estimated
27/10/2025
Linux benchmark · AI inference tests
Verdict
The Radeon AI PRO R9700 runs well on Linux, and two 32GB cards edge out a single RTX 6000 Ada, though two 300 W cards draw more power.
9.0
phoronix.com
≈ estimated
29/10/2025
Compute test · OpenCL benchmarks
Verdict
The Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a cool-running card for OpenCL compute on ROCm 7, but it draws more power than NVIDIA's RTX 4000 Ada.
8.0
phoronix.com
≈ estimated
27/10/2025
Launch test · Linux AI benchmarks
Verdict
The Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a 32GB AI card that runs smoothly under Linux with ROCm 7.0.2, though its memory bandwidth trails the Radeon PRO W7900.
8.0
phoronix.com
≈ estimated
29/10/2025
Compute test · OpenCL introduction
Verdict
The Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a 32GB RDNA4 card with official ROCm support, aimed at AI but also tested for general OpenCL compute.
8.0
igorslab.de
≈ estimated
08/12/2025
Workstation test · CAD and AI benchmarks
Verdict
The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a fast workstation card for AI and engineering work, but its hot memory and loud fans make it hard to live with.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700

  • High VRAM capacity (32GB GDDR6) for the price point, ideal for running 30B-70B LLMs locally
  • Excellent value proposition at roughly $1,299, often half the price of NVIDIA's top-tier workstation or high-VRAM consumer cards
  • Compact dual-slot blower design allows for high-density multi-GPU configurations in standard workstations
  • Strong out-of-the-box open-source Linux support and rapid improvements in ROCm compatibility
  • Low operating temperatures and generally quiet operation compared to other workstation blower models

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700

  • Significantly lower performance in 3D rendering and video generation (Blender/HIP) compared to NVIDIA's OptiX/CUDA ecosystem
  • Utilizes older GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, leading to lower VRAM bandwidth than high-end enthusiast or professional cards
  • Gaming performance is only comparable to mid-range consumer cards (e.g., RTX 5070 Ti) despite the professional price tag
  • Efficiency (performance-per-watt) lags behind NVIDIA's latest Ada or Blackwell workstation architectures
  • Requires specific software versions (e.g., Ubuntu 26.04+) for full driver/kernel support in some enterprise environments

Verdict

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a workstation-grade GPU built on the RDNA 4 architecture (Navi 48 XTW) that focuses on local AI acceleration and memory-intensive professional workloads. Key specifications include 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus providing 640 GB/s bandwidth, 64 Compute Units with 4,096 stream processors, and 128 second-generation AI accelerators capable of up to 1,531 TOPS for INT4 precision. Its main advantages are a high VRAM capacity for large language models, a dual-slot blower-style design optimized for high-density multi-GPU clusters, and significant value for AI inference compared to data-center-class hardware. However, potential drawbacks include a maximum power draw of 300 W, reliance on older GDDR6 technology rather than GDDR7, and lower competitive performance in traditional 3D rendering tasks compared to specialized NVIDIA professional cards.

Compare AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found