AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the process node difference between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 uses a 6 nm process at the same foundry.

Q: How much memory does each card have and what type is it?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory on a 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each card?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 delivers 12.19 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 support display outputs?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no display outputs, as it is designed for compute workloads.

Q: What is the power draw of each card?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has a TDP of 600 W and requires 2x 8-pin power connectors with a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has a TDP of 70 W, requires no external power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: When were both cards released?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 was released on 2023-01-03, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 was released on 2023-08-02.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300 and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 are built on completely different GPU architectures, reflecting their distinct roles. The MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, designed specifically for data center compute and AI workloads. Its chip, code-named Aqua Vanjaram, is a massive 1017 mm² die containing 153,000 million transistors. The W7500 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, a graphics-oriented design intended for professional visualization and workstation tasks, with the Navi 33 chip code-named Hotpink Bonefish on a 204 mm² die with 13,300 million transistors. The transistor density difference is substantial: 150.4M per mm² for the MI300 versus 65.2M per mm² for the W7500.

The memory subsystems are radically different. The MI300 packs 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s aggregate bandwidth, a configuration built for massive data sets in scientific computing. The W7500 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s, adequate for workstation graphics but nowhere near the MI300's capacity. The MI300 has zero ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, confirming it is not a rendering device. The W7500 has 64 ROPs and a 108.8 GPixel/s pixel rate, along with 28 ray tracing cores, which the MI300 does not list. The MI300 also reports no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

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 W7500 has a higher base clock of 1500 MHz and the same 1700 MHz boost, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The MI300's FP16 throughput is identical to its FP32 at 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the W7500 achieves 24.37 TFLOPS FP16 from a 12.19 TFLOPS FP32 baseline (2:1 ratio). The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, whereas the W7500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear performance separation between the two cards, but the comparison must account for their different target workloads. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, and its average benchmark score is 0 with a percentile of 50. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500, by contrast, has nine recorded benchmarks and an average score of 16415, placing it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs.

The W7500's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell scores 16408, virtually identical with a delta of 0%. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 16361, sitting 0.3% behind the W7500. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 16351, 0.4% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16504, which is 0.5% ahead of the W7500. These deltas indicate that the W7500 performs within a tight band around its immediate competitors, neither dominating nor being dominated by them.

Looking specifically at the W7500's individual benchmark results, the Geekbench Vulkan score of 68634 is the highest of its recorded tests, while the Geekbench OpenCL score of 58213 also shows strong compute capability. In Passmark tests, the G3D score of 13368 is the most representative of general graphics workload performance. The Passmark G2D score of 1174 and GPU compute score of 5910 round out the picture. Lower-level DirectX scores are 65 for DirectX 10, 125 for DirectX 11, 46 for DirectX 12, and 200 for DirectX 9. These numbers confirm that the W7500 is a functional workstation card, but the MI300 has no comparable data in the database, so direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons cannot be made from recorded measurements.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The MI300 uses a 5 nm process, while the W7500 uses 6 nm. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 13,300 million, and die sizes are 1017 mm² versus 204 mm². The MI300 has 14080 shading units and 880 TMUs, against the W7500's 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs. The MI300 has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate; the W7500 has 64 ROPs and 108.8 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 1,496.0 GTexel/s for the MI300 and 190.4 GTexel/s for the W7500.

Memory capacity is 128 GB versus 8 GB, with HBM3 versus GDDR6, bus widths of 8192 bit versus 128 bit, and bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Base clocks are 1000 MHz for the MI300 and 1500 MHz for the W7500, with identical 1700 MHz boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). FP32 is 47.87 TFLOPS versus 12.19 TFLOPS. FP16 is 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 600 W versus 70 W. The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, the W7500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300 has no display outputs; the W7500 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI300 requires 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 1000 W suggested PSU; the W7500 has no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. Physical dimensions are 267 mm by 111 mm for the MI300 versus 216 mm by 115 mm by 20 mm for the W7500, which is single-slot. The W7500 has a launch MSRP of 429 USD. The MI300's production status is not listed, while the W7500 is active.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two cards with fundamentally different purposes. The AMD Instinct MI300 is a compute accelerator with massive memory capacity, enormous memory bandwidth, and high FP32 throughput. Its lack of display outputs, ROPs, and graphics API support confirms it is not intended for rendering or display. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation graphics card with display outputs, ray tracing cores, and full graphics API support, operating at a fraction of the power draw. The MI300 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, while the W7500 has an average benchmark score of 16415 and sits in the 59th percentile. The MI300's percentile of 50 with zero benchmarks cannot be directly compared to the W7500's measured performance, so a valid head-to-head benchmark conclusion cannot be drawn from the data. The choice between them depends entirely on workload type: compute and data center acceleration versus professional graphics and rendering.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins in scenarios requiring massive memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 128 GB of HBM3 with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is suitable for large-scale data processing, scientific simulations, and AI training workloads that need to hold entire data sets on-card. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and identical FP16 throughput indicate strong compute density. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides high host bandwidth. The MI300 also has a higher texture rate at 1,496.0 GTexel/s, which matters in compute-heavy texture operations even though it has no traditional graphics pipeline.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins in every area related to graphics output and workstation use. It has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, 64 ROPs, 28 ray tracing cores, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 108.8 GPixel/s pixel rate and 190.4 GTexel/s texture rate are appropriate for rendering tasks. Its 70 W TDP with no external power connectors makes it deployable in systems with a 250 W PSU, a far lower system requirement than the MI300's 1000 W PSU suggestion. The W7500 also has recorded benchmark results showing it performs competitively against the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2, with deltas ranging from -0.5% to 0.4%. The MI300 has no such benchmark data, so its standing against competitors cannot be assessed from the database. For any task that requires a display, the W7500 is the only option between the two.