AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon 680M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300 and AMD Radeon 680M occupy opposite ends of AMD’s compute spectrum, one a massive data center accelerator and the other a compact integrated graphics processor for mobile systems. The recorded data shows no overlapping benchmark scores, as the Instinct MI300 has no entries in the database’s benchmark suite, while the Radeon 680M carries three recorded tests. This analysis compares their measured capabilities, architectural differences, and the practical implications of those differences based solely on the available specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results for these two products, and the Instinct MI300 lists zero benchmark scores across all recorded tests. The Radeon 680M, by contrast, has three measurable results. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the 680M scores 378. In Geekbench OpenCL, it records 23,468 points. In Geekbench Vulkan, it reaches 21,965 points. These scores place the 680M at the 57th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 15,270.

Because the MI300 has no benchmark entries, direct numerical comparison is impossible. The nearest rivals for the 680M provide context for its standing. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 averages 15,283 points, which is 0.1% lower than the 680M’s average. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 also averages 15,290, again 0.1% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM averages 15,199, which is 0.5% higher than the 680M. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 averages 15,171, 0.7% higher. These delta values show the 680M clustering tightly with a set of discrete desktop GPUs from several generations, despite being an integrated processor.

The MI300’s percentile rank of 50 with an average benchmark score of 0 indicates it has not been evaluated by the database’s standard testing procedure. Its computed texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s and FP32 throughput of 47.87 TFLOPS, however, suggest a vastly different performance tier than the 680M’s 105.6 GTexel/s and 3.379 TFLOPS. The gap between these theoretical figures is roughly 14x in texture rate and 14x in FP32 compute, though the absence of actual benchmark scores prevents confirmation through measured workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Based on architectural capabilities and recorded data, the Radeon 680M wins in every measurable benchmark category, simply because it has measurements and the Instinct MI300 does not. Beyond that, the 680M’s strengths lie in its integrated design and portability. It operates at 50 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and fits as an IGP in mobile platforms. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning it can drive screens in laptops and handhelds. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for modern gaming and consumer graphics workloads. Its 12 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects, a feature absent from the MI300’s specification sheet.

The Instinct MI300 wins in raw compute capacity and memory bandwidth. Its 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus delivers 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, a figure that dwarfs the 680M’s system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The MI300’s 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 performance target data center compute, AI training, and scientific simulation. Its 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die enable scale that a 50 W integrated GPU cannot approach. The MI300 has no display outputs, confirming its role as a compute accelerator rather than a graphics card.

For use cases, the 680M suits mobile devices where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter. Its 50 W TDP and lack of external power connectors make it a drop-in solution for thin laptops. The MI300, with a 600 W TDP and two 8-pin power connectors, requires a 1000 W suggested PSU and a full-length 267 mm card, fitting server racks rather than consumer systems.

Architecture Differences

The two chips share a manufacturer but diverge in every architectural layer. The Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon 680M uses RDNA 2.0 on the Rembrandt+ chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is small, but the transistor counts are not. The MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The 680M contains 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, for a density of 63.0 million per square millimeter. The MI300’s density is more than double that of the 680M, reflecting the maturity of the 5 nm node and the scale of the design.

Core counts differ by an order of magnitude. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs, while the 680M has 768 shading units and 48 TMUs. The MI300 lists 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, indicating it is not designed for rasterization output. The 680M has 32 ROPs and a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s. The MI300 has no ray tracing cores listed, while the 680M includes 12. The MI300’s FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), a common trait for compute accelerators that prioritize throughput. The 680M’s FP16 runs at 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), meaning its FP16 output is double its FP32 rate, a consumer-oriented design favoring gaming and media workloads.

Memory architecture separates the two completely. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, with memory clocked at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The 680M uses system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM. This means the 680M’s memory performance depends entirely on the host system’s RAM and bus configuration, while the MI300 has dedicated high-bandwidth memory.

The MI300’s base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 1700 MHz, while the 680M runs at 2000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the MI300’s massive core count produces far higher throughput. The 680M compensates for fewer cores with higher clocks, a typical tradeoff for power-constrained integrated parts.

The MI300 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the 680M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300 has no display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support listed, and no API compatibility for consumer graphics. The 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a fully capable consumer graphics solution.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Radeon 680M has an average benchmark score of 15,270, while the Instinct MI300 has an average benchmark score of 0 due to having no recorded benchmark entries.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The Instinct MI300 has 128 GB of dedicated HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 680M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM.

Q: Does the Instinct MI300 support ray tracing?

A: No, the MI300 lists no ray tracing cores. The Radeon 680M includes 12 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The Instinct MI300 has a 600 W TDP, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The Radeon 680M has a 50 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which product has a higher transistor density?

A: The Instinct MI300 has a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter on a 5 nm process. The Radeon 680M has a density of 63.0 million per square millimeter on a 6 nm process.

Q: Can the Instinct MI300 output video to a display?

A: No, the MI300 has no display outputs. The Radeon 680M’s display outputs are portable device dependent, allowing it to drive integrated displays in mobile systems.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every specification field. The architecture is CDNA 3.0 for the MI300 versus RDNA 2.0 for the 680M. The process node is 5 nm for the MI300 and 6 nm for the 680M. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 13,100 million. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 208 mm². Transistor density is 150.4 million per square millimeter versus 63.0 million per square millimeter.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The 680M runs at 2000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the MI300, while the 680M uses system shared memory.

Memory configuration shows the biggest gap. The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3, an 8192-bit bus, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 680M has system shared memory, system shared type, system shared bus width, and system dependent bandwidth.

Shading units are 14,080 for the MI300 versus 768 for the 680M. Texture mapping units are 880 versus 48. ROPs are 0 for the MI300 versus 32 for the 680M. Ray tracing cores are absent for the MI300, while the 680M has 12.

Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI300 versus 70.40 GPixel/s for the 680M. Texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 47.87 TFLOPS versus 3.379 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP is 600 W for the MI300 versus 50 W for the 680M. Power connectors are two 8-pin for the MI300 versus none for the 680M. The suggested PSU is 1000 W for the MI300, with no value for the 680M. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8.

Display outputs are none for the MI300 versus portable device dependent for the 680M. API support is N/A for the MI300 across DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Dimensions differ: the MI300 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, while the 680M has no listed dimensions. Slots width is not listed for the MI300, while the 680M is an IGP. Production status is null for the MI300 and active for the 680M. Release dates are one day apart, with the MI300 on January 3, 2023 and the 680M on January 2, 2023. The MI300’s predecessor is Radeon Instinct, while the 680M’s predecessor is Vega II IGP. The 680M has a successor, Navi III IGP, while the MI300 has none listed.