AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for this comparison is asymmetrical. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no benchmark entries in the database, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has two recorded test results. This means the head-to-head comparison is based entirely on the W7800's measured performance, with the MI300's capabilities described only through its architectural specifications.

The Radeon PRO W7800 posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 154,366 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 175,422. Its average benchmark score across these two tests is 164,894. This places the card at the 97th percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating that it outperforms the vast majority of recorded graphics hardware.

When positioned against its nearest rivals, the W7800 shows a tight competitive cluster. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 averages 165,217, which is 0.2% higher than the W7800's average, a margin so small it falls within typical run-to-run variance. The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation averages 166,094, putting it 0.7% ahead. The AMD Radeon Pro W6900X averages 168,574, which is 2.2% ahead of the W7800. The only rival that the W7800 leads is the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB, which averages 162,504, a 1.5% deficit relative to the W7800.

The Instinct MI300, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores and therefore no percentile ranking beyond the default 50th percentile placeholder, which reflects the absence of data rather than measured performance. Its average benchmark score is listed as zero, again indicating no completed tests in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear distinction between these two AMD accelerators. The Radeon PRO W7800 has measured results across OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, with an average score of 164,894 and a 97th percentile standing. It competes within a narrow performance band against the RTX A5500, RTX 4500 Ada Generation, Radeon Pro W6900X, and A100 PCIe 40 GB, with deltas ranging from 2.2% behind to 1.5% ahead.

The Instinct MI300 has no benchmark data in the database. Its specifications indicate a very different design, but without recorded test scores, no direct performance comparison can be made. The database shows zero wins for the MI300 and zero wins for the W7800 in head-to-head benchmark entries, because no such entries exist.

For users seeking a GPU with verified performance in standard compute benchmarks, the W7800 is the only option with data. For users considering the MI300, the database currently lacks the measurements needed to assess its standing against the W7800 or any other card.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon PRO W7800?

A: The W7800 has an average benchmark score of 164,894 across its two recorded tests.

Q: How does the Radeon PRO W7800 compare to the NVIDIA RTX A5500 in average score?

A: The RTX A5500 averages 165,217, which is 0.2% higher than the W7800's average.

Q: Does the Instinct MI300 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the MI300 has an empty benchmark list and an average score of zero in the database.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the Radeon PRO W7800 among all GPUs?

A: The W7800 sits at the 97th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth, the MI300 or the W7800?

A: The MI300 has a memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s, while the W7800 has 576.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Radeon PRO W7800?

A: The launch MSRP of the W7800 is 2,499 USD.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply across nearly every specification category.

Memory capacity differs substantially. The Instinct MI300 packs 128 GB of HBM3 memory across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W7800 carries 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI300's memory system offers more than nine times the bandwidth of the W7800.

Clock speeds also differ. The MI300 runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and 1700 MHz boost clock, with memory clocked at 1300 MHz or 5.2 Gbps effective. The W7800 operates at 1895 MHz base and 2525 MHz boost, with memory at 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective. The W7800's core clocks are substantially higher, while the MI300 compensates with its wide memory interface.

Shader resources favor the MI300 in raw counts. It has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, yielding a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The W7800 has 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, with a texture rate of 707.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 323.2 GPixel/s. The MI300 has over three times the shading units and TMUs, but the W7800 handles rasterization output while the MI300 has none.

Floating-point throughput shows a close contest in FP32. The MI300 reaches 47.87 TFLOPS, while the W7800 reaches 45.25 TFLOPS, a narrow 5.8% advantage for the MI300. In FP16, the situation reverses: the MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the W7800 delivers 90.50 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, giving the W7800 nearly double the FP16 throughput.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The MI300 has a 600 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1000 W, while the W7800 has a 260 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 600 W. Both use 2x 8-pin power connectors. The MI300 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the W7800 measures 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The W7800 is a dual-slot card; the MI300's slot width is not recorded.

The bus interface differs: the MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs also separate them. The MI300 has no display outputs, while the W7800 provides 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two AMD products is fundamental. The Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the Radeon PRO W7800 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Navi 31 chip, codenamed Plum Bonito. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but they serve different design goals.

Transistor counts diverge widely. The MI300 contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The W7800 contains 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, with a density of 109.1M per mm². The MI300 has roughly 2.7 times the transistor count and nearly double the die area.

The MI300 is a compute-focused accelerator with no ROPs, no display outputs, and no graphics API support. Its DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support are all listed as N/A. The W7800, in contrast, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 70 ray tracing cores. The MI300 lists no ray tracing cores.

The memory technologies reflect the different purposes. The MI300 uses HBM3, a high-bandwidth stacked memory designed for data-center compute workloads. The W7800 uses GDDR6, a conventional graphics memory suited to workstation rendering and general GPU tasks. The MI300's 8192-bit bus is unprecedented in consumer or workstation graphics, while the W7800's 256-bit bus is typical for its class.

The MI300's generation is listed as Instinct (MIx) with a predecessor of Radeon Instinct, while the W7800 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation with a predecessor of Radeon Pro Vega. The MI300 was released on 2023-01-03, while the W7800 followed on 2023-04-12. The W7800 has an active production status; the MI300's production status is not recorded.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Radeon PRO W7800 wins in every measured category because it is the only card with benchmark results. It has a 97th percentile ranking, an average score of 164,894, and competitive positioning against four named rivals. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A5500, beats it by only 0.2%, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X leads by 2.2%. The W7800 leads the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.5%.

The Instinct MI300 wins on specification-based comparisons where the database provides numbers. It has 128 GB of memory versus 32 GB, 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth versus 576.0 GB/s, 14,080 shading units versus 4,480, and 880 TMUs versus 280. Its FP32 throughput of 47.87 TFLOPS edges past the W7800's 45.25 TFLOPS. Its transistor count of 153,000 million dwarfs the W7800's 57,700 million.

The W7800 wins on FP16 throughput, delivering 90.50 TFLOPS versus the MI300's 47.87 TFLOPS. It also wins on pixel rate, with 323.2 GPixel/s versus the MI300's 0 MPixel/s, and on display connectivity, with four DisplayPort outputs versus none. The W7800 has lower power requirements, with a 260 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU versus the MI300's 600 W TDP and 1000 W suggested PSU.

For users whose workloads involve graphics APIs, ray tracing, display output, or rasterization, the W7800 is the only viable option in this comparison. For users whose workloads demand massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, or raw shading unit counts, the MI300 presents the stronger specification sheet, though its lack of benchmark data leaves its real-world performance unverified in the database.