AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Instinct MI300X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the AMD Instinct MI300X. The MI300 has no benchmark scores in the database, leaving its percentile ranking at 50 among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 0. The MI300X, by contrast, holds a single recorded result in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 317994, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

This absence of comparative data for the MI300 is significant. The MI300X's score positions it clearly among the top accelerators recorded. Against its nearest rivals, the MI300X trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5 percent (334891 vs 317994) and the NVIDIA B200 by 8 percent (345482 vs 317994). It leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5 percent (295763 vs 317994) and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7 percent (287237 vs 317994). These deltas frame the MI300X as a mid-to-upper tier competitor in the aggregate compute segment, though not the absolute leader.

Because the MI300 lacks any recorded scores, no win/loss tally can be assigned. The database shows winsA at 0 and winsB at 0, confirming that no measured comparison exists. The analysis must therefore rely on architectural specifications to differentiate the two parts. The MI300X's benchmark result, combined with its larger compute resources and higher clock ceiling, suggests it would outperform the MI300 in any OpenCL workload, but the data does not quantify that gap.

The percentile difference is stark. The MI300 sits at the 50th percentile by default, a placeholder value reflecting the absence of measurements rather than measured performance. The MI300X at the 100th percentile indicates that every GPU with a recorded score in the database falls at or below its result. This is not a comparison between the two AMD parts; it is a statement about the MI300X's standing among all measured accelerators.

Architecture Differences

Both accelerators share the same foundational design. The chip is Aqua Vanjaram, built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Transistor count is identical at 153,000 million, and the die size is 1017 mm², yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The memory type is HBM3 in both cases, with an 8192-bit bus width and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. Neither part has display outputs, and both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface.

The first divergence appears in clock speeds. The base clock is the same at 1000 MHz for both. The boost clock differs: the MI300 reaches 1700 MHz, while the MI300X boosts to 2100 MHz. Memory clock is identical at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective transfer. This 400 MHz boost advantage directly influences compute throughput.

Shader resources scale substantially. The MI300 carries 14,080 shading units and 880 texture mapping units. The MI300X increases this to 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units. That is a 38.2 percent increase in shader count and a 38.2 percent increase in TMUs. Neither part has ROPs, with pixel rate recorded as 0 MPixel/s. Ray tracing cores and tensor cores are not listed for either.

Texture rate reflects the combined effect of clock and unit count. The MI300 delivers 1,496.0 GTexel/s, while the MI300X reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s, a 70.7 percent advantage. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern. The MI300 offers 47.87 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS for both precisions, a 70.7 percent improvement. The FP16 to FP32 ratio is 1:1 on both parts, indicating no dedicated tensor path is exposed in the database.

Memory capacity is the other major divider. The MI300 includes 128 GB of HBM3, while the MI300X includes 192 GB. Bandwidth remains identical at 5.32 TB/s because the bus width and memory clock are unchanged. The capacity increase of 64 GB does not affect bandwidth, which is determined by the 8192-bit interface and 1300 MHz memory clock.

Power characteristics diverge as well. The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W and uses two 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W, uses no power connectors (it is an OAM Module form factor), and carries a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The MI300 has physical dimensions recorded as 267 mm length and 111 mm height, while the MI300X has no dimensions listed.

Release timing differs by nearly a year. The MI300 was released on January 3, 2023. The MI300X followed on December 5, 2023. Both list Radeon Instinct as their predecessor, and neither has a recorded successor.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has the higher boost clock?

A: The MI300X boosts to 2100 MHz, while the MI300 boosts to 1700 MHz. The base clock is identical at 1000 MHz for both.

Q: How much memory does each accelerator have?

A: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3, and the MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3. Both use an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS, and the MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS. The MI300X is 70.7 percent higher. Both parts have a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio.

Q: Are the chips and process nodes the same?

A: Yes. Both use the Aqua Vanjaram chip on CDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Transistor count is 153,000 million and die size is 1017 mm² for both.

Q: Does the MI300X have any recorded benchmark results?

A: Yes. The MI300X has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317994, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs. The MI300 has no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP with two 8-pin connectors and a suggested 1000 W PSU. The MI300X has a 750 W TDP, no power connectors (OAM Module), and a suggested 1150 W PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300 | AMD Instinct MI300X |

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

| Boost clock | 1700 MHz | 2100 MHz |

| Memory size | 128 GB | 192 GB |

| Shading units | 14,080 | 19,456 |

| Texture mapping units | 880 | 1,216 |

| Texture rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 2,553.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 47.87 TFLOPS | 81.72 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 750 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 1150 W |

| Slot width | Not listed | OAM Module |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length, 111 mm height | Not listed |

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

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 50 | 100 |

| Average benchmark score | 0 | 317994 |

Identical specifications include the chip (Aqua Vanjaram), architecture (CDNA 3.0), process node (5 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistor count (153,000 million), die size (1017 mm²), transistor density (150.4M / mm²), base clock (1000 MHz), memory clock (1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective), memory type (HBM3), memory bus width (8192 bit), memory bandwidth (5.32 TB/s), pixel rate (0 MPixel/s), bus interface (PCIe 5.0 x16), display outputs (none), and API support (DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A).

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation between the two accelerators. The MI300X is the more capable part on every measured compute metric. It holds a 70.7 percent advantage in both texture rate and FP32/FP16 throughput, driven by a 38.2 percent increase in shading units and a 400 MHz higher boost clock. Its memory capacity is 50 percent larger at 192 GB versus 128 GB, which matters for workloads that exceed the MI300's capacity limit.

The MI300X's recorded benchmark result confirms its standing. A Geekbench OpenCL score of 317994 places it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. It sits within 8 percent of the NVIDIA B200 and 5 percent of the NVIDIA H200 NVL, while leading the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5 percent and the RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7 percent. These are measured deltas, not extrapolations.

The MI300, with no recorded benchmarks and a placeholder 50th percentile, cannot be positioned relative to any accelerator. Its specifications indicate a lower compute ceiling: 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, 1,496.0 GTexel/s, and a 1700 MHz boost. It also draws less power at 600 W versus 750 W and uses standard 8-pin connectors rather than the OAM module interface of the MI300X.

For deployment decisions, the MI300X is the choice when peak compute and larger memory capacity are required. Its 81.72 TFLOPS and 192 GB capacity support larger models and higher throughput in dense compute workloads. The MI300 is the lower-power option with a smaller physical footprint (267 mm length, 111 mm height) and conventional power connectors. It suits environments with 1000 W PSU budgets and board-style mounting. Both share the same memory bandwidth, so workloads that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound would see less differentiation between the two.

The release timing also matters. The MI300 arrived in January 2023, the MI300X in December 2023. The later part carries the higher specifications, which aligns with the progression from the base MI300 to the expanded MI300X variant. The absence of head-to-head measurements means the exact performance delta between these two AMD parts is not recorded, but the architectural gap and the MI300X's benchmark result provide sufficient evidence for its superiority in compute-intensive tasks.