AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon PRO V710 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the AMD Radeon PRO V710. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and the wins counters for both parts are zero. This means there are no shared workloads with measured scores for both accelerators in the database.

What the database does contain is a benchmark profile for the Radeon PRO V710. It records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 853 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 116,460. The Instinct MI300 has no benchmark entries at all, so its performance can only be inferred from its architectural parameters rather than measured results.

The Radeon PRO V710 holds an average benchmark score of 58,657 across its recorded tests. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 88, meaning it ranks above 88 percent of the GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA P102-100 at 58,528 average score, which is 0.2 percent behind, the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392, which is 0.5 percent behind, the Intel Arc A570M at 58,239, which is 0.7 percent behind, and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085, which is 1 percent behind. The deltas are small, so the V710 sits in a tightly clustered performance band near the top of this group.

Because the MI300 lacks any benchmark scores, no exact percentage advantage or deficit can be stated between the two cards. The data only permits a qualitative comparison based on specifications and the V710's measured results against its rivals.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the AMD Radeon PRO V710 uses the Navi 32 chip built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the underlying designs diverge sharply.

The MI300 integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The V710 integrates 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, yielding a density of 81.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The MI300 has more than five times the transistor count and nearly three times the die area.

Memory architectures are fundamentally different. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The V710 uses 28 GB of GDDR6 with a 224-bit bus and 504.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI300 delivers over ten times the memory bandwidth and more than four times the capacity.

Compute resources also differ. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s. The V710 has 3,456 shading units, 216 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 432.0 GTexel/s. The MI300 has roughly four times the shading units and TMUs but cannot rasterize pixels at all, a hallmark of its compute-focused CDNA design.

Floating-point throughput follows the same pattern. The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, with a 1:1 ratio. The V710 delivers 27.65 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, also at a 1:1 ratio. The MI300 leads by roughly 73 percent in raw FP32 and FP16 throughput.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz, with memory clocked at 1300 MHz or 5.2 Gbps effective. The V710 has a base clock of 1900 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, with memory clocked at 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective. The V710 runs much faster on the core, but the MI300 compensates with a far wider memory interface and far more compute units.

The MI300 includes 54 ray tracing cores, while the MI300 lists no ray tracing cores. The MI300 also has no API support entries for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, whereas the V710 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 is a PCIe 5.0 x16 device, while the V710 is a PCIe 4.0 x16 device.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 has 504.0 GB/s from 28 GB of GDDR6 on a 224-bit bus.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI300 render graphics?

A: The data indicates it cannot. The MI300 has 0 ROPs, a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, and no display outputs. It also has no API support entries for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Q: What is the power draw of each card?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has a TDP of 600 W and uses two 8-pin power connectors with a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 has a TDP of 158 W and uses one 8-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 has a density of 81.2 million transistors per square millimeter.

Q: How does the Radeon PRO V710 compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The V710 has an average benchmark score of 58,657. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA P102-100 at 58,528 (0.2 percent behind), the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392 (0.5 percent behind), the Intel Arc A570M at 58,239 (0.7 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085 (1 percent behind).

Q: What are the release dates for these two accelerators?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 was released on January 3, 2023. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 was released on October 2, 2024.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram for the MI300 versus Navi 32 for the V710
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 versus RDNA 3.0
• Codename: The MI300 lists no codename; the V710 is codenamed Wheat Nas
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series)
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus 28,100 million
• Die size: 1017 mm² versus 346 mm²
• Transistor density: 150.4 million per mm² versus 81.2 million per mm²
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 1900 MHz
• Boost clock: 1700 MHz versus 2000 MHz
• Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 128 GB versus 28 GB
• Memory type: HBM3 versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 8192 bit versus 224 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 504.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 14,080 versus 3,456
• Texture mapping units: 880 versus 216
• ROPs: 0 versus 96
• Ray tracing cores: None listed versus 54
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 432.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 47.87 TFLOPS versus 27.65 TFLOPS
• FP16: 47.87 TFLOPS versus 27.65 TFLOPS
• TDP: 600 W versus 158 W
• Slot width: Not listed versus single-slot
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 1000 W versus 450 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: None for both
• DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4
• Dimensions: 267 mm length and 111 mm height for the MI300; the V710 lists no dimensions
• Release date: 2023-01-03 versus 2024-10-02
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct for the MI300 versus Radeon Pro Vega for the V710
• Percentile versus all GPUs: 50 for the MI300 versus 88 for the V710
• Average benchmark score: 0 for the MI300 versus 58,657 for the V710

The Verdict

The data describes two accelerators with opposite design priorities. The AMD Instinct MI300 is a massive, compute-oriented accelerator: 153,000 million transistors, 128 GB of HBM3, 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32, and no rasterization hardware whatsoever. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 is a far smaller, power-efficient card with 28,100 million transistors, 28 GB of GDDR6, 504.0 GB/s of bandwidth, 27.65 TFLOPS of FP32, and full rasterization support with 96 ROPs and 54 ray tracing cores.

The MI300 has no benchmark scores in the database and a percentile of 50, which places it at the median of all GPUs, but that percentile is based on zero recorded measurements. The V710 has an actual measured average score of 58,657 and an 88th percentile ranking, supported by two recorded tests. For any workload represented by the database's benchmark suite, only the V710 has evidence of performance.

The MI300 wins on raw compute specifications, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. The V710 wins on clock speed, power efficiency, API support, and measured benchmark results. The MI300 demands a 1000 W PSU and 600 W TDP, while the V710 asks for 450 W and draws 158 W.

Users needing a data-center-oriented accelerator with maximum memory and bandwidth, and who do not require rasterization or graphics APIs, can look to the MI300's specifications. Users needing a card with measured performance, graphics API support, and far lower power requirements should look to the V710. The data cannot declare a single winner because no direct tests exist; the choice depends entirely on whether the workload matches the MI300's compute profile or the V710's measured and graphics-capable profile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins in categories tied to sheer compute density and memory scale. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 throughput exceeds the V710's 27.65 TFLOPS by a wide margin. Its 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth is more than ten times the V710's 504.0 GB/s. Its 128 GB capacity dwarfs the V710's 28 GB. Its 1,496.0 GTexel/s texture rate exceeds the V710's 432.0 GTexel/s. The MI300 also wins on transistor count, die size, and transistor density, all of which point to a part built for maximum parallel throughput. It is the only one of the two that uses HBM3 and an 8192-bit bus.

The AMD Radeon PRO V710 wins in categories tied to practical graphics and measured performance. It is the only one with ROPs, 96 of them, and a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s. It is the only one with ray tracing cores, 54 of them. It is the only one with API support, covering DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has a higher base clock of 1900 MHz versus 1000 MHz and a higher boost clock of 2000 MHz versus 1700 MHz. It draws 158 W versus 600 W, uses a single 8-pin connector instead of two, and has a suggested PSU of 450 W instead of 1000 W. It is a single-slot card, while the MI300 lists no slot width. It also holds the only recorded benchmark scores, with an average of 58,657 and an 88th percentile ranking, while the MI300 has no scores and a 50th percentile based on no data.