AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon 780M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 and AMD Radeon 780M occupy opposite ends of the accelerator spectrum, and the recorded data reflects that divide clearly. The Instinct MI300 is a data center compute accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a reported pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. Its purpose is raw compute throughput for server workloads, not rendering or interactive graphics. The Radeon 780M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into the Phoenix chip, designed for consumer laptops and compact desktops, with full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support.

The benchmark data in the database only includes entries for the Radeon 780M. Its average benchmark score is 17,588, placing it at the 61st percentile of all GPUs tracked. The Instinct MI300 has no recorded benchmark scores, an average score of 0, and sits at the 50th percentile. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and neither product records a win in the winsA or winsB fields. This means a direct numerical comparison of application performance cannot be constructed from the available measurements.

The use-case split is therefore defined by architecture and feature support rather than by comparative scores. The Instinct MI300 wins in the domain of massive parallel compute, where its 14,080 shading units, 128 GB of HBM3 memory, and 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth serve workloads that require enormous memory capacity and sustained throughput. The Radeon 780M wins in the domain of conventional graphics and everyday computing, where its 768 shading units, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores deliver a complete rendering pipeline within a 15 W power envelope. The data shows two products with no functional overlap: one is a headless compute accelerator, the other is a fully featured integrated GPU.

Architecture Differences

The Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The Radeon 780M uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with the Phoenix chip. These are distinct design philosophies. CDNA 3.0 is AMD's compute-optimized architecture, stripped of graphics-specific hardware. The MI300 has 0 ROPs, no ray tracing cores listed, and no graphics API support, which is consistent with a device that reports a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The RDNA 3.0 architecture in the 780M retains the full graphics pipeline, including 32 ROPs and 12 ray tracing cores, and reports a pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s.

The transistor counts differ by an order of magnitude. The MI300 integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per mm². The 780M integrates 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding 142.6 million transistors per mm². The MI300 has the larger die and the higher density, reflecting its role as a multi-die compute engine. The 780M is a much smaller, monolithic-class IGP.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The 780M uses system shared memory, with a bus width listed as "System Shared" and bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." The MI300 has dedicated high-bandwidth memory; the 780M borrows from the host system's memory pool. Clock behavior also differs. The MI300 runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, with memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The 780M runs at an 800 MHz base and a 2900 MHz boost, with memory speed determined by the host system.

Power and interface further separate the two. The MI300 is rated at 600 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 1000 W power supply. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The 780M is rated at 15 W, requires no power connectors, and uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300 has no display outputs; the 780M's display outputs are motherboard dependent. The MI300 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the 780M has no listed dimensions because it is an IGP integrated into a processor package.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two products. The winsA and winsB fields are both 0, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. As a result, there are no exact score deltas to report between the Instinct MI300 and the Radeon 780M. The comparison must rely on the standalone measurements and the architectural data.

The Radeon 780M has three recorded benchmark scores. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 480. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 18,602. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 33,683. These scores produce an average of 17,588 across the three tests. The 780M's nearest rivals in the database show how close its average sits to other products. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 has an average score of 17,551, a delta of 0.2% above the 780M. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has an average score of 17,509, a delta of 0.5% above. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 has an average score of 17,639, a delta of -0.3% below the 780M. The AMD Radeon HD 7790 has an average score of 17,666, a delta of -0.4% below. The data indicates the 780M performs within a narrow band around these four rivals, with the largest separation being 0.5% from the Radeon Pro 460 and -0.4% from the Radeon HD 7790.

The Instinct MI300 has no benchmark scores in the database. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile versus all GPUs is 50. This does not indicate poor performance; it indicates an absence of recorded measurements. The MI300's raw compute specifications are substantial. Its FP32 throughput is 47.87 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is also 47.87 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s. These figures dwarf the 780M's 8.909 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 and 139.2 GTexel/s texture rate. The MI300 leads the 780M by a wide margin in raw arithmetic throughput, but no benchmark scores exist to translate that into application-level deltas.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Instinct MI300 have no benchmark scores in the database?

A: The database records no benchmark entries for the Instinct MI300. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and no nearest rivals are recorded. The Radeon 780M, by contrast, has three benchmark scores: 480 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 18,602 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 33,683 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Which product has better graphics API support?

A: The Radeon 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and has no display outputs.

Q: How does the Radeon 780M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 780M has an average benchmark score of 17,588. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 is 0.2% higher, the AMD Radeon Pro 460 is 0.5% higher, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 is 0.3% lower, and the AMD Radeon HD 7790 is 0.4% lower.

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two products?

A: The Instinct MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 780M uses system shared memory, with its bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The Instinct MI300 is rated at 600 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors with a suggested 1000 W power supply. The Radeon 780M is rated at 15 W and requires no power connectors.

Q: Which product has ray tracing support?

A: The Radeon 780M has 12 ray tracing cores. The Instinct MI300 lists no ray tracing cores in the database.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the AMD Radeon 780M.

• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 (MI300) versus RDNA 3.0 (780M)
• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram (MI300) versus Phoenix (780M)
• Process Node: 5 nm (MI300) versus 4 nm (780M)
• Transistors: 153,000 million (MI300) versus 25,390 million (780M)
• Die Size: 1017 mm² (MI300) versus 178 mm² (780M)
• Transistor Density: 150.4M / mm² (MI300) versus 142.6M / mm² (780M)
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz (MI300) versus 800 MHz (780M)
• Boost Clock: 1700 MHz (MI300) versus 2900 MHz (780M)
• Memory: 128 GB HBM3 (MI300) versus System Shared (780M)
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit (MI300) versus System Shared (780M)
• Memory Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s (MI300) versus System Dependent (780M)
• Memory Clock: 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective (MI300) versus System Shared (780M)
• Shading Units: 14,080 (MI300) versus 768 (780M)
• Texture Mapping Units: 880 (MI300) versus 48 (780M)
• ROP Units: 0 (MI300) versus 32 (780M)
• Ray Tracing Cores: None listed (MI300) versus 12 (780M)
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s (MI300) versus 92.80 GPixel/s (780M)
• Texture Rate: 1,496.0 GTexel/s (MI300) versus 139.2 GTexel/s (780M)
• FP32 Performance: 47.87 TFLOPS (MI300) versus 8.909 TFLOPS (780M)
• FP16 Performance: 47.87 TFLOPS 1:1 (MI300) versus 8.909 TFLOPS 1:1 (780M)
• TDP: 600 W (MI300) versus 15 W (780M)
• Slot Width: Not listed (MI300) versus IGP (780M)
• Power Connectors: 2x 8-pin (MI300) versus None (780M)
• Suggested PSU: 1000 W (MI300) versus not listed (780M)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 (MI300) versus PCIe 4.0 x8 (780M)
• Display Outputs: No outputs (MI300) versus Motherboard Dependent (780M)
• DirectX Support: N/A (MI300) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2) (780M)
• OpenGL Support: N/A (MI300) versus 4.6 (780M)
• Vulkan Support: N/A (MI300) versus 1.4 (780M)
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 111 mm (MI300) versus not listed (780M)
• Production Status: Not listed (MI300) versus Active (780M)
• Release Date: 2023-01-03 (MI300) versus 2024-01-30 (780M)
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct (MI300) versus Navi II IGP (780M)
• Successor: Not listed (MI300) versus Navi III IGP (780M)
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 50th (MI300) versus 61st (780M)
• Average Benchmark Score: 0 (MI300) versus 17,588 (780M)