AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Instinct MI300A Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data for both accelerators contains no completed benchmark runs, so neither unit can claim a victory in any measured workload. The wins tally is zero for each part. What the database does show is a clear separation in compute ceiling and power envelope, which points toward different deployment preferences.

The MI300 is the lower-intensity option. It carries a 600 W thermal design power and a 1000 W suggested power supply. The MI300A raises both figures to 750 W and 1150 W respectively. If the task is constrained by rack power density or cooling capacity, the MI300 is the more manageable unit.

The MI300A is the higher-throughput part. It posts a larger FP32 rating, a higher texture rate, and a faster boost clock. For workloads that saturate compute units, the MI300A is the one that extracts more mathematical work from the same basic silicon.

Neither part has display outputs, so both are strictly for compute or server environments. Neither has a pixel rate above zero, which confirms these are not rasterization devices.

Architecture Differences

Both accelerators share the same silicon foundation. They use the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, produced on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is identical at 153,000 million, and the die size is the same 1017 mm². The transistor density is 150.4 million per square millimeter in both cases.

The compute configuration is where they diverge. The MI300 ships with 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The MI300A increases shading units to 14,592 and TMUs to 912, still with zero ROPs. That is a difference of 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units, which explains the higher texture rate and FP32 throughput on the MI300A.

Clock behavior also differs. The base clock is identical at 1000 MHz for both, but the boost clock is 1700 MHz on the MI300 and 2100 MHz on the MI300A. That 400 MHz boost advantage is a major contributor to the MI300A's higher peak performance.

Memory is unchanged between the two. Both use 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is the same at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. There are no tensor cores or ray tracing cores listed for either part, and both rely on the same PCIe 5.0 x16 interface.

The MI300A is listed as an OAM Module for slot width, while the MI300 does not have a slot width recorded. The MI300 has a physical length of 267 mm and height of 111 mm, while the MI300A has no dimensions recorded. The MI300 uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the MI300A has no power connectors listed, which is consistent with an OAM form factor that draws power through the socket.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct comparison benchmark scores in the database, so the analysis relies on computed specifications rather than measured runs.

The largest single gap is in FP32 floating point throughput. The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS, which is 28% higher than the MI300's 47.87 TFLOPS. In absolute terms, that is a 13.42 TFLOPS advantage. For single-precision compute workloads, the MI300A is the clear choice.

Texture rate follows a similar pattern. The MI300A reaches 1,915.2 GTexel/s, which is 28% above the MI300's 1,496.0 GTexel/s. The additional 32 TMUs and the higher boost clock both contribute to this result.

Boost clock is the most visible specification gap. The MI300A runs at 2100 MHz, a 23.5% increase over the MI300's 1700 MHz. This is the primary driver of the performance difference, since the base clocks and memory subsystem are identical.

The MI300 has a 16-bit FP16 rating of 47.87 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The MI300A does not have an FP16 figure recorded in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for half-precision workloads.

The power envelope grows by 150 W, from 600 W on the MI300 to 750 W on the MI300A. The suggested power supply increases from 1000 W to 1150 W, a 150 W jump that mirrors the TDP difference.

Specification Differences

| Specification | MI300 | MI300A |

|---|---|---|

| Shading Units | 14,080 | 14,592 |

| TMUs | 880 | 912 |

| Boost Clock | 1700 MHz | 2100 MHz |

| FP32 | 47.87 TFLOPS | 61.29 TFLOPS |

| Texture Rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 1,915.2 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 600 W | 750 W |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 1150 W |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | OAM Module |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2023-12-05 |

| FP16 | 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

Everything else is identical: 5 nm process, 153,000 million transistors, 1017 mm² die size, 150.4M transistors per mm², 1000 MHz base clock, 1300 MHz memory clock, 128 GB HBM3, 8192-bit bus, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, PCIe 5.0 x16, no display outputs, and no supported graphics APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which has more shading units?

A: The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, compared to 14,080 on the MI300, a difference of 512 units.

Q: Is the memory configuration the same on both?

A: Yes, both use 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth and a 1300 MHz memory clock.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS while the MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS, making the MI300A approximately 28% faster in single-precision compute.

Q: Do either of these cards have display outputs?

A: No, both list "No outputs" for display connections, and both have zero pixel rate.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP with a 1000 W suggested PSU, while the MI300A has a 750 W TDP with a 1150 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which one was released first?

A: The MI300 was released on 2023-01-03, while the MI300A followed on 2023-12-05.

The Verdict

The data points are unambiguous about which part delivers more raw compute. The MI300A leads in shading units, texture mapping units, boost clock, FP32 throughput, and texture rate. It is the higher-performing accelerator in every recorded compute metric. The 400 MHz boost advantage and the extra 512 shading units translate into a 28% FP32 lead and a 28% texture rate lead. For any workload that stresses single-precision math or texture fetch, the MI300A is the superior part.

The MI300 is not without its place. It runs at a lower 600 W TDP, which makes it more suitable for systems where power delivery or cooling is constrained. It also has a lower suggested PSU rating of 1000 W versus 1150 W. For dense installations where each slot has a fixed power budget, the MI300 fits more easily. It also has a recorded physical footprint of 267 mm by 111 mm, whereas the MI300A has no dimensions in the database, so physical integration planning is only possible for the MI300.

Both parts share the same memory subsystem, the same process node, the same transistor count, and the same die size. They are the same silicon with different binning and configuration. The MI300A is the fully enabled version with higher clocks and more compute units. The MI300 is the reduced configuration with a lower power ceiling.

The release dates also matter for procurement planning. The MI300 appeared on 2023-01-03, nearly a year before the MI300A on 2023-12-05. Systems designed around the earlier part might have already been deployed, while new designs can target the later release.

There is no benchmark data to confirm real-world scaling, but the specification sheet favors the MI300A across every compute metric. The MI300 is the choice for power-constrained environments that still need 128 GB of HBM3 and the full 5.32 TB/s of memory bandwidth. The MI300A is the choice for maximum compute throughput per socket, accepting the higher power draw and OAM form factor.

Neither part supports graphics APIs, neither has display outputs, and both are built exclusively for compute acceleration. The decision comes down to whether the workload requires the extra 28% of FP32 throughput or the lower power envelope. The database records no scenario where the MI300 wins a performance comparison.