Thursday, July 17th 2025

AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 GPU Arrives on July 23rd

by
AleksandarK
 Discuss (93 Comments)
AMD confirmed today that its RDNA 4-based Radeon AI PRO R9700 GPU will reach retail on Wednesday, July 23. Built on the Navi 48 die with a full 32 GB of GDDR6 memory and supporting PCIe 5.0, the R9700 is specifically tuned for lower-precision calculations and demanding AI workloads. According to AMD, it delivers up to 496% faster inference on large transformer models compared to NVIDIA's desktop RTX 5080, while carrying roughly half the price of the forthcoming RTX PRO "Blackwell" series. At launch, the Radeon AI PRO R9700 will only be offered inside turnkey workstations from OEM partners such as Boxx and Velocity Micro. Enthusiasts who wish to install the card themselves can expect standalone boards from ASRock, PowerColor, and other add-in-board vendors later in the Q3. Early listings suggest a price of around $1,250, placing it above the $599 RX 9070 XT yet considerably below competing NVIDIA workstation GPUs. Retailers are already accepting pre-orders.

Designed for AI professionals who require more than what consumer-grade hardware can provide, the Radeon AI PRO R9700 excels at natural language processing, text-to-image generation, generative design, and other high-complexity tasks that rely on large models or memory-intensive pipelines. It's 32 GB of VRAM allows production-scale inference, local fine-tuning, and multi-modal workflows to run entirely on-premises, improving performance, reducing latency, and enhancing data security compared to cloud-based solutions. Full compatibility with AMD's open ROCm 6.3 platform provides developers with access to leading frameworks, including PyTorch, ONNX Runtime, and TensorFlow. This enables AI models to be built, tested, and deployed efficiently on local workstations. The card's compact dual-slot design and blower-style cooler ensure reliable front-to-back airflow in dense multi-GPU configurations, making it simple to expand memory capacity, deploy parallel inference pipelines, and sustain high-throughput AI infrastructure in enterprise environments.
Sources: AMD Blog, via VideoCardz

Related News

Add your own comment

93 Comments on AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 GPU Arrives on July 23rd

#26
dgianstefani
TPU Proofreader
igormpWell, your phrasing made it sound weird:

Makes more sense if you typo'ed and meant "CUDA alternatives" instead.
The way I wrote it made sense enough. ROCm, ZLUDA, SCALE, these alternatives to CUDA (doesn't need to be said, it's the default, as I've already stated).
igormpPlease, do point to whenever I said it's competitive.
If it's not competitive, why bother?
igormpIf you were to say something like rendering (which is not my area), I'd have no opinion whatsoever, other than agreeing that Optix simply mops the floor with AMD when it comes to blender.
CUDA cards mop the floor with every AMD prosumer/productivity/workstation alternative, viable or not. Until that changes, there is essentially no competition. Proving something like ROCm works in a lab or when on a budget does not = the competitive solution the entire rest of the market goes for. Move the needle or be ignored.
igormpThe 1080ti has no cooperative matrix support, and its performance is subpar, a 2060 manages to be over 2x faster for anything matrices.
Both are shit.
It has CUDA, so it is useful, pretty much that simple. 11 GB VRAM and enough cores to do most of the work you do on a 4080, just slower. The point is it's viable, a word you use. It was competitive on release eight years ago, and today it's usable and does the job. Obviously if building new on a $3-400 budget you would pick something like a 40/5060 Ti 16 GB, not a used 1080 Ti. The point I'm making is in a choice between Vega and Pascal, the Pascal developer/professional is still making money today, and has got eight years of usefulness out of their card. The later RTX cards didn't exist when the 1080 Ti released, the Vega 64 did, hence my comparison, so arguing they are better is irrelevant.
igormp7900XTXs are simply almost impossible to find used in my market, and go for way more than 3090s, and priced way too close to 4090s (which doesn't make sense whatsoever).
Looking over on ebay US, 3090s are a bit cheaper than 7900XTXs, with the 4090s being way more expensive than both.
Yes, I know, the 7900XTX doesn't make sense.
igormpNow I'm confused. We are talking about used products. People making proper money as a business won't even be looking for those so the discussion of used products would be moot.
Hobbyists and small scale stuff would be the ones looking into those, no matter if nvidia or AMD, and that's where the argument makes sense.
People making proper money as a business buy RTX Pro cards. The rest buy xx90 cards or whatever they can afford/find.
igormpWhat does gaming have to do with anything we've discussed so far?
They're irrelevant for both gaming/productivity in 2025 when picking a card, for gaming you pick 9070XT, for productivity you pick NVIDIA, that's what it has to do with this discussion.
igormpSo? How's that any relevant? I'm not talking about those lacking any sort of software support, rather that the hardware itself is useless, which applies for both vega64 and the 1080ti.
"Useless". You're bundling both into the same camp because that way you can claim a false equivalence, instead of admitting the 1080 Ti was way more useful as a productivity card over the past eight years, and indeed today.
igormpAgain, all your points seem to be from someone that has no industry experience in that specific field. I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue for anymore lol
Appeal to authority huh?
Posted on Reply
#27
Vya Domus
dgianstefaniOr how AMD are currently comparing the $11700 96 core 9995WX against the $5890 60 core Xeon-3595X, instead of the $7999 64 core 9985WX.

Anything to show a bigger bar chart.
"Anything to show a bigger bar chart"

lol

They are comparing their best vs their best.
Posted on Reply
#28
Dragokar
I would like to get one to tinker around with it, no matter what someone might believe how useful it might be. Having alternatives due to other options should be in every consumer top list.
Posted on Reply
#29
LastDudeALive
Vya DomusThey are comparing their best vs their best.
Then why doesn't AMD compare their best workstation card (R9700) against the best Nvidia workstation card (RTX Pro 6000 Blackwell)? Why'd they pick the second-tier consumer GPU with half the VRAM and then crow it can't run models that exceed its VRAM? The only basis for comparing the R9700 against the 5080 is they cost roughly the same, which is why the issue of AMD comparing their $11,000 Threadripper against a $6000 Xeon was brought up.
Posted on Reply
#30
dgianstefani
TPU Proofreader
LastDudeALiveThen why doesn't AMD compare their best workstation card (R9700) against the best Nvidia workstation card (RTX Pro 6000 Blackwell)? Why'd they pick the second-tier consumer GPU with half the VRAM and then crow it can't run models that exceed its VRAM? The only basis for comparing the R9700 against the 5080 is they cost roughly the same, which is why the issue of AMD comparing their $11,000 Threadripper against a $6000 Threadripper was brought up.
Closer to 12k vs 6k, and I think you mean Xeon.
Posted on Reply
#31
Vya Domus
LastDudeALiveThen why doesn't AMD compare their best workstation card (R9700) against the best Nvidia workstation card (RTX Pro 6000 Blackwell)? Why'd they pick the second-tier consumer GPU with half the VRAM and then crow it can't run models that exceed its VRAM? The only basis for comparing the R9700 against the 5080 is they cost roughly the same, which is why the issue of AMD comparing their $11,000 Threadripper against a $6000 Xeon was brought up.
Totally backwards logic, the type you'd only use if you are a fanboy who wants to find something to complain about.

You think it's unfair that they're comparing those GPUs therefore it must also be unfair that they're comparing their best CPU with Intel's best CPU. Which I am sure you realize is total nonsense.

If you think comparing the R9700 to a 5080 is wrong, fine, whatever, but pretending other random comparisons they made are unfair because "AMD bad" or whatever is just dumb.
Posted on Reply
#32
LastDudeALive
Vya DomusTotally backwards logic, the type you'd only use if you are a fanboy who wants to find something to complain about.
I'm not the one who brought up the Threadripper comparisons, I was explaining to you why someone else had brought it up (there's another thread if you want to talk about the Threadripper announcement).
Vya DomusYou think it's unfair that they're comparing those GPUs therefore it must also be unfair that they're comparing their best CPU with Intel's best CPU. Which I am sure you realize is total nonsense.
Actually, I don't even really care that much about the fairness of the comparison. My much bigger concern is how desperate AMD has to be to resort to these absurd comparisons. You do have a point that with the Threadripper, they're at least comparing top model to top model, and everyone is used to taking marketing announcements and first-party benchmarks with a hefty plate of salt. But these specific "benchmarks" for the R9700 are so outlandish and so unrealistic that it reeks of panic. If I was a system builder or IT department for an enterprise in the market for AI workstations, this announcement would confirm my purchase of an Nvidia workstation card. If the best scenario AMD can come up for their new workstation flagship with is just exceeding the VRAM of a second-tier consumer card, AMD is dead in this market.
Posted on Reply
#33
Vya Domus
LastDudeALiveI was explaining to you why someone else had brought it up
Doesn't matter, I explained why it doesn't make sense.
LastDudeALiveMy much bigger concern is how desperate AMD has to be to resort to these absurd comparisons.
They're not absurd.

The comparison is perfectly reasonable, R9700 has way more VRAM, there are uses cases where you are simply shit out of luck with a 5080 no matter how awesome and fast it is and you'd have to pay at least 2500$ for a 5090 to get the same 32GB or God knows how much for one of their pro cards with the same amount of VRAM. There really isn't any other product they could have compared it to that would have made more sense.
this announcement would confirm my purchase of an Nvidia workstation card
Yeah right, because if you had the money to pay thousands for an Nvidia workstation card you'd be waiting to see how AMD's mid range offerings fair as if you'd expect them to be better in every way than Nvidia's best cards lol.

Again, this is the thought process of a fanboy, not a real consumer. A real consumer with this budget wouldn't be buying their workstation cards because he wouldn't have the money, hence comparing this to things like the 5080 makes sense.
Posted on Reply
#34
LastDudeALive
Vya DomusThe comparison is perfectly reasonable, R9700 has way more VRAM, there are uses cases where you are simply shit out of luck with a 5080 no matter how awesome and fast it is and you'd have to pay at least 2500$ for a 5090 to get the same 32 GB or God knows how much for one of their pro cards with the same amount of VRAM.
Vya DomusYeah right, because if you had the money to pay thousands for an Nvidia workstation card you'd be waiting to see how AMD's mid range offerings fair as if you'd expect them to be faster than Nvidia's best cards lol.
I can't believe you typed these two statements one after the other, and then hit "Post reply". That is hilarious. Does an extra $1200 for a 5090 or 4500 Blackwell matter, or does it not? Is there a market and usecase for the R9700, or no? You seem to be conflicted. And this isn't a "mid-range offering," this is their best workstation model this generation.

If AMD's target market is just "people who need 32GB of VRAM but also will be bankrupted by spending an extra $1300 for an Nvidia card," again, they are completely dead in this market. That hasn't worked in the consumer space, and it most definitely isn't working in the workstation market.
Posted on Reply
#35
Vya Domus
LastDudeALiveIf AMD's target market is just "people who need 32GB of VRAM but also will be bankrupted by spending an extra $1300 for an Nvidia card," again, they are completely dead in this market. That hasn't worked in the consumer space, and it most definitely isn't working in the workstation market.
AMD's target is people who are buying cards in that price range for the purpose of running LLMs, it's that simple. I know you can't understand it or perhaps you're pretending to not understand it but there's nothing more than can be explained.

If every consumer would always be willing to pay more because "an extra $$$ wouldn't bankrupt them", then Nvidia wouldn't sell cheaper pro cards, which they do, cheapest Blackwell card (24GB) is 1500$ in case you didn't know. So clearly there is a market for cheaper products in the segment, unless Nvidia is also selling products that are "dead" according your very high IQ take.

So it's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted on Reply
#36
igormp
dgianstefaniThe way I wrote it made sense enough. ROCm, ZLUDA, SCALE, these alternatives to CUDA (doesn't need to be said, it's the default, as I've already stated).
It did not, but ok.
dgianstefaniIf it's not competitive, why bother?
Competitive is not a simple, single metric. Being too simplistic and reducing it to a single graph on what you think is competitive is as important as the use of AMD GPUs for microcontrollers.
dgianstefaniCUDA cards mop the floor with every AMD prosumer/productivity/workstation alternative, viable or not. Until that changes, there is essentially no competition.
Wrong. Don't do such bold claims that only show your ignorance.
dgianstefaniProving something like ROCm works in a lab or when on a budget does not = the competitive solution the entire rest of the market goes for. Move the needle or be ignored.
Sure, tell that to hyperscalers.
dgianstefaniIt has CUDA, so it is useful, pretty much that simple. 11 GB VRAM and enough cores to do most of the work you do on a 4080, just slower. The point is it's viable, a word you use. It was competitive on release eight years ago, and today it's usable and does the job. Obviously if building new on a $3-400 budget you would pick something like a 40/5060 Ti 16 GB, not a used 1080 Ti. The point I'm making is in a choice between Vega and Pascal, the Pascal developer/professional is still making money today, and has got eight years of usefulness out of their card. The RTX cards didn't exist when the 1080 Ti released, the Vega 64 did, hence my comparison, so arguing they are better is irrelevant.
Again, no, that's totally wrong and now how it's used. You could even give a read on the local LLM thread we have in here and see how things work.
dgianstefaniYes, I know, the 7900XTX doesn't make sense.
People making proper money as a business buy RTX Pro cards. The rest buy xx90 cards or whatever they can afford/find.
They're irrelevant for both gaming/productivity in 2025 when picking a card, for gaming you pick 9070XT, for productivity you pick NVIDIA, that's what it has to do with this discussion.
Bruh lol
dgianstefani"Useless". You're bundling both into the same camp because that way you can claim a false equivalence, instead of admitting the 1080 Ti was way more useful as a productivity card over the past eight years, and indeed today.
The 1080ti was extremely relevant at its time and AMD was utter crap. I never said otherwise.
Nowadays? The 1080ti is as relevant as vega64 for the stuff we're talking about: better used as a space heater.
dgianstefaniAppeal to authority huh?
Well, you don't seen to be doing any argument in good faith, bring no evidence or proper arguments, and are just bashing a product that you have never used on tasks you clearly never worked with while praising another product for in the tasks that you clearly never used it for either.
So yeah, I feel like I get a pass to step down to your level on a pointless discussion :p
Posted on Reply
#37
Visible Noise
Hecate91CUDA being open source would've been better off for everyone but it's Nvidia they've gotten 90% of the market from rigging the game.
Open source has worked out so well for AMD. Why would Nvidia want that?
Posted on Reply
#39
Visible Noise
igormpidk, ask nvidia themselves
github.com/nvidia
I’m aware, I specifically was comparing CUDA to ROCm and AMD’s desire to have other people do their job for them.

Look at the commit history of ROCm. While I won’t say nobody wants anything to do with it…
Posted on Reply
#40
igormp
Visible NoiseLook at the commit history of ROCm. While I won’t say nobody wants anything to do with it…
Both companies are not really welcoming external contributors, because bureaucracy. Even as an external contractor for AMD getting upstream changes done in their repos is quite annoying.
Similar thing happens at Nvidia, where they have an extremely annoying setup for most of their projects with an internal perforce repo and the public github one that have to be kept in sync.
Posted on Reply
#41
Apocalypsee
Back to topic, interesting that their Pro GPU uses R9700 naming instead of Pro R9070.
Posted on Reply
#42
lexluthermiester
dgianstefaniThe key words there are "compelling" and "better".
I would find it compelling if it were even on par or close. That's just me though.
dgianstefanihence why RDNA is being dropped next gen.
To be fair, it's being replaced and I suspect they'll keep it around for a bit like they do with every generational switch-over.
igormpThat's exactly what ROCm is. It's not great, but it has certainly been improving and getting more traction.
Gonna have to read up on that.
Posted on Reply
#43
Camm
Wonder if these have SRIOV.... Could be tempted > <
Posted on Reply
#44
usiname
LastDudeALiveI'm not the one who brought up the Threadripper comparisons, I was explaining to you why someone else had brought it up (there's another thread if you want to talk about the Threadripper announcement).


Actually, I don't even really care that much about the fairness of the comparison. My much bigger concern is how desperate AMD has to be to resort to these absurd comparisons. You do have a point that with the Threadripper, they're at least comparing top model to top model, and everyone is used to taking marketing announcements and first-party benchmarks with a hefty plate of salt. But these specific "benchmarks" for the R9700 are so outlandish and so unrealistic that it reeks of panic. If I was a system builder or IT department for an enterprise in the market for AI workstations, this announcement would confirm my purchase of an Nvidia workstation card. If the best scenario AMD can come up for their new workstation flagship with is just exceeding the VRAM of a second-tier consumer card, AMD is dead in this market.
So you are butthurted, because AMD is comparing their 12k CPU that is twice as fast and consume less power than the best Intel's 6k CPU, also you are butthurted, because they show how their card supposed to have MSRP of ~1300 is better than Nvidia's 5080 which currently cost more than 1300. Maybe they should show comparison with Nvidia's pro series, where Nvidia will be twice as fast for 4x more money, but I am pretty sure then you will forget about the price and will point on the score claiming that this card is useless.
Posted on Reply
#45
the54thvoid
Super Moderator
Thread cleaned. Discuss the topic please, not what people can post.
Posted on Reply
#46
Sol_Badguy
dgianstefaniThe lack of CUDA makes AMD DGPUs DOA for most things workstation/scientific. Occasionally there's a metric where AMD is competitive for workstations, but it's the exception, not the rule.

This is regarding productivity OFC, not gaming, where RDNA 4 is reasonably competitive vs Blackwell.

Beyond just the hardware, developer and software support for NVIDIA's CUDA architecture is so many orders of magnitude ahead it's not even funny. AMD has made some steps in the right direction recently, but they have a lot of catching up to do and NVIDIA has insane momentum.

I wouldn't say DOA.
Also the situation has changed somewhat compared to the 7900XTX days.

AMD is performing very well in some workloads (Topaz AI, Unreal Engine, ON1 Resize, partially SPEC workstation etc.).
www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/nvidia-5060-ti-vs-amd-9060-xt-for-content-creation/
www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/nvidia-geforce-rtx-5060-test.92811/seite-7
www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/amd-radeon-rx-9060-xt-16gb-review/6
More here @10:38.
But it's still a long road ahead of them: www.phoronix.com/review/radeon-rx-9060-xt-rocm
nVidia is extremely strong in rendering, but in everything else it's much closer than some would like to admit.
Posted on Reply
#47
Dr. Dro
I was estimating $1500, 1250 for this GPU is a great deal. 32 GB on a "budget", with half performance but also half the price of the 5090. This one has a place even in high end gaming PCs at that price. Good stuff.
Posted on Reply
#48
Tyler-98-W68
ApocalypseeBack to topic, interesting that their Pro GPU uses R9700 naming instead of Pro R9070.
Back in the day the Radeon 9700 pro was an amazing card. Shame they have slipped so far
Posted on Reply
#49
Chomiq
Dr. DroThis one has a place even in high end gaming PCs at that price. Good stuff.
If it wasn't for the stupid blower design.

Yes, I know that it makes sense for workstation PC, but not for a gaming PC in 2025.
Posted on Reply
#50
Dr. Dro
ChomiqIf it wasn't for the stupid blower design.

Yes, I know that it makes sense for workstation PC, but not for a gaming PC in 2025.
It's likely there will be blocks, and probably third party heatsinks that work with it, it's not that much of a problem as far as I'm concerned. Worth it. The price is too good to pass up for a 32 GB GPU, even if it's plain ole' G6. AMD should make sure this is widely available IMO.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 14th, 2026 00:28 CST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts