AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI300 or the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0 and no head-to-head benchmark entries. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical at 50 for both parts, indicating that without measured performance data, neither unit can be positioned above the other in any workload category. Wins are recorded as 0 for each side.

Because no synthetic or real-world test results are present, the comparison rests entirely on the architectural and specification data contained in the database. The FP32 compute throughput is identical: both deliver 47.87 TFLOPS. The texture rate matches at 1,496.0 GTexel/s, and the pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for both. These figures confirm that for single-precision floating-point workloads, the two accelerators are functionally equivalent in the recorded data.

The FP16 figures diverge sharply. The AMD Instinct MI300 lists FP16 at 47.87 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 lists FP16 at 383.0 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio. That represents a substantial multiple in half-precision throughput, though the database does not provide a percentage delta for this comparison. The memory clock differs as well: the Instinct MI300 runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the Radeon Instinct MI300 runs at 1600 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective. Memory bandwidth follows accordingly, with 5.32 TB/s versus 6.55 TB/s. The Radeon Instinct MI300 holds a clear advantage in memory bandwidth, which can influence throughput for memory-bound operations.

Architecture Differences

Both parts use the same physical chip, the Aqua Vanjaram, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 153,000 million, and the die size is 1017 mm². Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for both. The architecture is CDNA 3.0 in each case. The shading units number 14080 on both, and the TMUs are 880 on both. ROPs are listed as 0 for both, and neither part has RT cores or tensor cores specified in the database.

The core clock behavior matches: base clock is 1000 MHz and boost clock is 1700 MHz for both. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for both. Power consumption is 600 W TDP for each, with dual 8-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. Physical dimensions are identical: 267 mm length, 111 mm height. Neither card has display outputs, and both are server-oriented accelerators without video connectivity.

The key architectural difference lies in the memory subsystem and the FP16 execution path. The Instinct MI300 uses a memory clock of 1300 MHz and a 5.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the Radeon Instinct MI300 uses 1600 MHz and 6.4 Gbps effective. Both share the same 128 GB HBM3 capacity and 8192-bit bus width. The bandwidth difference is 5.32 TB/s versus 6.55 TB/s, a gap of 1.23 TB/s in absolute terms. The FP16 ratio difference indicates a distinct processing configuration: the Instinct MI300 processes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, whereas the Radeon Instinct MI300 processes FP16 at an 8:1 ratio, allowing much higher half-precision throughput.

The API support also differs. The Instinct MI300 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The Radeon Instinct MI300 lists these fields as null, meaning no data is recorded. Both are released on the same date, 2023-01-03, and both belong to the Instinct (MIx) generation, though the Radeon Instinct MI300's generation string notes "Radeon Instinct (MIx)" separately. The predecessor names differ: the Instinct MI300 lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor, while the Radeon Instinct MI300 lists FirePro Data Center.

FAQ

Q: What is the difference in FP16 performance between the two accelerators?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 delivers 383.0 TFLOPS FP16 with an 8:1 ratio. The Radeon Instinct MI300 provides roughly eight times the half-precision throughput, though the database does not include a percentage comparison.

Q: Are the memory capacities the same?

A: Yes, both use 128 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus width. The difference is in bandwidth: the Instinct MI300 reaches 5.32 TB/s, while the Radeon Instinct MI300 reaches 6.55 TB/s due to a higher memory clock.

Q: Do the two cards have the same power requirements?

A: Yes, both are rated at 600 W TDP, use two 8-pin power connectors, and require a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The physical dimensions are also identical at 267 mm length and 111 mm height.

Q: Which card has better FP32 performance?

A: Neither has an advantage. Both deliver 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, share the same texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s, and have identical shading units and TMUs.

Q: What is the process node and chip design for both?

A: Both are built on TSMC's 5 nm process using the Aqua Vanjaram chip. Each contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, with a transistor density of 150.4M per mm².

Q: Are there any benchmark scores recorded for either product?

A: No. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0, no head-to-head benchmark entries, and a percentile versus all GPUs of 50. The database contains no measured performance results for either accelerator.

The Verdict

The data indicates the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 is the stronger choice for workloads that depend on half-precision arithmetic or memory bandwidth. Its FP16 throughput of 383.0 TFLOPS is a significant multiple of the Instinct MI300's 47.87 TFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth of 6.55 TB/s exceeds the other's 5.32 TB/s. For FP32-centric tasks, the two are indistinguishable: identical clock speeds, identical shading units, identical texture rate, and identical FP32 TFLOPS. Neither card has recorded benchmark scores, so the verdict must be drawn from specification analysis alone. The Radeon Instinct MI300 also carries a different predecessor lineage, FirePro Data Center, whereas the Instinct MI300 derives from Radeon Instinct, but this does not affect measured capability.

The Instinct MI300 offers no advantage in any recorded specification. Every field where the two differ favors the Radeon Instinct MI300. The only fields that are not identical are those where the Radeon Instinct MI300 is faster or where API data is null rather than N/A. There is no recorded metric where the Instinct MI300 leads. Users selecting between these two should note that the Radeon Instinct MI300 provides additional headroom in memory-bound and half-precision workloads without any penalty in power draw, size, or FP32 capability.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI300 | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 |

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

| Memory clock | 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective | 1600 MHz, 6.4 Gbps effective |

| Memory bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 6.55 TB/s |

| FP16 performance | 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) | 383.0 TFLOPS (8:1) |

| DirectX support | N/A | null |

| OpenGL support | N/A | null |

| Vulkan support | N/A | null |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Radeon Instinct (MIx) |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | FirePro Data Center |

All other recorded specifications are identical: process node 5 nm, foundry TSMC, transistor count 153,000 million, die size 1017 mm², transistor density 150.4M / mm², base clock 1000 MHz, boost clock 1700 MHz, memory size 128 GB, memory type HBM3, bus width 8192 bit, shading units 14080, TMUs 880, ROPs 0, pixel rate 0 MPixel/s, texture rate 1,496.0 GTexel/s, FP32 47.87 TFLOPS, TDP 600 W, power connectors 2x 8-pin, suggested PSU 1000 W, bus interface PCIe 5.0 x16, display outputs none, dimensions 267 mm length and 111 mm height, release date 2023-01-03.