AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI300 and AMD Radeon RX 7600 target entirely different workloads. The MI300 is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no DirectX support, and no rasterization pipeline. The RX 7600 is a consumer graphics card with full API support, active production status, and a complete rendering pipeline. The recorded data confirms the MI300 leads in raw compute throughput, while the RX 7600 leads in every graphics-oriented metric.

The Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 versus 21.75 TFLOPS for the RX 7600. That is a 2.2x advantage in floating-point throughput. The texture rate tells a similar story: 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 339.8 GTexel/s, a 4.4x gap. The MI300 also holds a massive memory advantage with 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, producing 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, compared to 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 288.0 GB/s. The RX 7600 counters with a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s, while the MI300 posts 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs.

The RX 7600 has a recorded average benchmark score of 15,171, with a percentile rank of 57 among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM at 15,199 (0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon 680M at 15,270 (0.7% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro 560X at 15,082 (0.6% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti at 15,063 (0.7% lower). The MI300 has no benchmark scores and no nearest rivals recorded, sitting at the 50th percentile with an average score of 0. This indicates the database does not track gaming or graphics workloads for the MI300, reinforcing its compute-only design.

The choice depends on workload. For compute-heavy tasks such as large-scale matrix operations, the MI300 is the clear selection. For any task requiring a display output, rasterization, or gaming, the RX 7600 is the only option with the necessary hardware and software support.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600 wins in every area related to graphics output and rendering. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300 reports N/A for all three APIs. The RX 7600 has 64 ROPs and produces 169.9 GPixel/s, enabling actual pixel rendering. It also includes 32 ray tracing cores, which the MI300 lacks entirely. The RX 7600 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the MI300 has no outputs.

The MI300 wins in compute throughput and memory capacity. Its FP32 output of 47.87 TFLOPS doubles the RX 7600. The FP16 performance is identical at 47.87 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 7600 also runs FP16 at 21.75 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The MI300's texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s far exceeds the RX 7600's 339.8 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth favors the MI300 at 5.32 TB/s, which is 18.5x the RX 7600's 288.0 GB/s. The MI300 also has 14080 shading units versus 2048, and 880 TMUs versus 128.

The RX 7600 wins on power efficiency when considering performance per watt. It draws 165 W TDP versus 600 W for the MI300. The RX 7600 also has a smaller physical footprint at 204 mm length versus 267 mm for the MI300, and it requires a single 8-pin power connector versus two 8-pin connectors for the MI300. The RX 7600 suggests a 450 W power supply, while the MI300 suggests 1000 W.

The MI300 does not participate in standard graphics benchmarks. The RX 7600 has recorded scores across 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (2,310), Geekbench OpenCL (88,051), Geekbench Vulkan (34,401), Passmark DirectX 10 (84), DirectX 11 (172), DirectX 12 (58), DirectX 9 (226), G2D (984), G3D (16,634), and GPU Compute (8,790). The MI300 has no such scores in the database.

Architecture Differences

The MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC, with the chip codenamed Aqua Vanjaram. It integrates 153,000 million transistors on a die size of 1017 mm², achieving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². This is a compute-optimized design with no ROPs, no pixel rate, and no display outputs. It has 14080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The memory subsystem uses 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, running at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective speed. The base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost clock of 1700 MHz. The power target is 600 W with two 8-pin connectors and a suggested 1000 W power supply. It uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The MI300 has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, and its release date is recorded as 2023-01-03.

The RX 7600 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm process from TSMC, with the chip codenamed Navi 33 and the internal codename Hotpink Bonefish. It integrates 13,300 million transistors on a die size of 204 mm², achieving a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². This is a graphics-optimized design with 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The memory subsystem uses 8 GB of GDDR6 across a 128-bit bus, running at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. The base clock is 1720 MHz, the boost clock is 2655 MHz, and the game clock is 2250 MHz. The power target is 165 W with a single 8-pin connector and a suggested 450 W power supply. It uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The RX 7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. Its release date is 2023-05-24, and it is listed as Active production status.

The process node difference matters. The MI300 uses 5 nm, while the RX 7600 uses 6 nm, both from TSMC. The MI300 packs 11.5x more transistors than the RX 7600, and its die is 5x larger. The transistor density is 2.3x higher on the MI300, reflecting the tighter 5 nm process and the larger allocation to compute resources.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. HBM3 on the MI300 provides 5.32 TB/s over an 8192-bit interface, while GDDR6 on the RX 7600 provides 288.0 GB/s over a 128-bit interface. The MI300 has 16x the memory capacity and 18.5x the bandwidth. The RX 7600 uses a narrower bus but a higher effective memory clock (18 Gbps versus 5.2 Gbps).

The MI300's boost clock of 1700 MHz is lower than the RX 7600's 2655 MHz, but the MI300 compensates with 6.9x more shading units. The RX 7600's higher clocks and dedicated ROPs enable pixel rendering, which the MI300 cannot perform.

FAQ

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600 includes 32 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: Can the Instinct MI300 connect to a monitor?

A: No. The MI300 has no display outputs. The RX 7600 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3, while the RX 7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6. The MI300's memory bus is 8192-bit versus 128-bit for the RX 7600.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 performance?

A: The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, which is 2.2x the RX 7600's 21.75 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the database have benchmark scores for the MI300?

A: No. The MI300 has no recorded benchmarks and an average score of 0. The RX 7600 has 10 recorded benchmark scores with an average of 15,171.

Q: Which card supports DirectX?

A: The RX 7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The MI300 reports N/A for DirectX support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two cards. The wins are determined by comparing their recorded specifications and available benchmark data.

The MI300 wins decisively in FP32 compute. Its 47.87 TFLOPS is 120% higher than the RX 7600's 21.75 TFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is identical: 47.87 TFLOPS versus 21.75 TFLOPS, both with 1:1 ratios. This indicates the MI300 is twice as fast in general-purpose compute workloads that utilize FP32 or FP16 arithmetic.

The texture rate gap is even larger. The MI300 achieves 1,496.0 GTexel/s, which is 4.4x the RX 7600's 339.8 GTexel/s. This reflects the MI300's 880 TMUs versus 128 TMUs for the RX 7600. The MI300 can process texture-heavy workloads much faster, though the RX 7600's pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s for the MI300 means the RX 7600 is the only one capable of producing rendered frames.

Memory bandwidth shows the largest proportional difference. The MI300's 5.32 TB/s is 18.5x the RX 7600's 288.0 GB/s. This is the result of 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, versus 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The MI300's memory clock runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective speed, while the RX 7600 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. The wider bus on the MI300 more than compensates for the lower clock.

The RX 7600 wins in clock speed. Its boost clock of 2655 MHz is 56% higher than the MI300's 1700 MHz. The RX 7600 also has a game clock of 2250 MHz, which the MI300 does not have. The RX 7600's base clock is 1720 MHz versus 1000 MHz for the MI300.

The RX 7600 wins in pixel throughput. Its 169.9 GPixel/s is achieved through 64 ROPs, while the MI300 has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. This is a categorical difference: the MI300 cannot rasterize at all.

The RX 7600 has benchmark evidence of its graphics performance. Its Passmark G3D score is 16,634, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 34,401. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2,310. The MI300 has no equivalent scores, confirming it is not evaluated in graphics benchmarks.

The power consumption difference is substantial. The MI300 draws 600 W TDP, while the RX 7600 draws 165 W. The MI300 requires two 8-pin connectors and a 1000 W power supply, while the RX 7600 requires one 8-pin connector and a 450 W power supply. The MI300's higher power draw is consistent with its larger transistor count and memory system.

The nearest rivals for the RX 7600 show it sits in a tight performance band. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15,199, just 0.2% higher. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 15,270, 0.7% higher. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X scores 15,082, 0.6% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti scores 15,063, 0.7% lower. The RX 7600's average of 15,171 places it within 1% of all four rivals, indicating very close overall benchmark performance in the database's recorded tests.

The MI300 has no rivals listed, and its percentile rank of 50 with an average score of 0 suggests it is not comparable to consumer GPUs in the database's metrics. The RX 7600's percentile rank of 57 places it above the median of all GPUs tracked.