AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M. The Instinct MI300 has no benchmark entries, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. The RX 7600M, by contrast, has one recorded benchmark result in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 63775 points, placing it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs.

This means the data offers only one side of the comparison. The RX 7600M’s OpenCL score of 63775 positions it nearly level with several near rivals. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP scores 63830, a delta of -0.1 percent relative to the RX 7600M. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX scores 63842, also a -0.1 percent delta. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 scores 63693, a +0.1 percent delta, meaning the RX 7600M trails that card by 0.1 percent. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 scores 64212, a -0.7 percent delta, so the RX 7600M sits 0.7 percent behind it. These deltas show the RX 7600M landing in a tight cluster, with its nearest rival gap never exceeding 0.7 percent in either direction.

For the Instinct MI300, the absence of recorded scores means no measurable win can be claimed from benchmark data. Its 50th percentile rank reflects a lack of entries rather than a performance position. The RX 7600M, with an 89th percentile rank, clearly outperforms the MI300 in the one metric where data exists, but that metric, OpenCL, is not applicable to the MI300 at all, as its API list shows DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all marked N/A.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher recorded benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600M has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 63775, while the AMD Instinct MI300 has no benchmark entries and an average score of 0.

Q: How does the RX 7600M compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark performance?

A: The RX 7600M scores 63775. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP scores 63830 (-0.1 percent delta), the NVIDIA CMP 30HX scores 63842 (-0.1 percent), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 scores 63693 (+0.1 percent), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 scores 64212 (-0.7 percent). The RX 7600M is within 0.7 percent of all four.

Q: What are the memory capacities of the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API features?

A: No. The RX 7600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The MI300 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The RX 7600M uses a 6 nm process at TSMC with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 7600M has a boost clock of 2410 MHz, while the MI300 has a boost clock of 1700 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from AMD. The Instinct MI300 uses CDNA 3.0, designed for compute and data center workloads, while the RX 7600M uses RDNA 3.0, aimed at graphics rendering in mobile systems. The MI300’s chip is named Aqua Vanjaram, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation. The RX 7600M’s chip is Navi 33, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, part of the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation.

Process technology separates them clearly. The MI300 is fabricated on a 5 nm node at TSMC, holding 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, for a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The RX 7600M uses a 6 nm node at the same foundry, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The MI300 has over 11 times the transistor count and a die over five times larger.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, achieving 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7600M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300’s bus width is 64 times larger, and its bandwidth is roughly 20 times higher.

Compute resources also differ. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units and 880 texture mapping units, but 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The RX 7600M has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and a pixel rate of 154.2 GPixel/s. The MI300 has no ray tracing cores listed, while the RX 7600M has 28. The MI300’s texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s, far above the RX 7600M’s 269.9 GTexel/s. The MI300 produces 47.87 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The RX 7600M produces 17.27 TFLOPS in FP32 and 34.55 TFLOPS in FP16 at a 2:1 ratio.

Neither GPU has tensor cores listed. The MI300 has no display outputs, while the RX 7600M’s outputs are described as portable device dependent.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The MI300 is a 5 nm chip with 153,000 million transistors and a 1017 mm² die. The RX 7600M is a 6 nm chip with 13,300 million transistors and a 204 mm² die. The MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz, with memory clocked at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The RX 7600M has a base clock of 1500 MHz, a boost clock of 2410 MHz, a game clock of 2070 MHz, and memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ: 128 GB HBM3, 8192-bit, 5.32 TB/s versus 8 GB GDDR6, 128-bit, 256.0 GB/s. Shading units are 14,080 versus 1,792. TMUs are 880 versus 112. ROPs are 0 versus 64. Ray tracing cores are absent on the MI300 and present at 28 on the RX 7600M. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 154.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 269.9 GTexel/s. FP32 is 47.87 TFLOPS versus 17.27 TFLOPS. FP16 is 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 34.55 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specs diverge as well. The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, and requires a 1000 W suggested PSU. The RX 7600M has a TDP of 90 W, uses no power connectors (listed as "None"), and has no suggested PSU. The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the RX 7600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300 has no display outputs; the RX 7600M’s are portable device dependent. The MI300 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the RX 7600M has no recorded dimensions. The MI300’s slot width is not recorded, while the RX 7600M’s slot width is listed as "IGP," or integrated graphics package.

API support is a major split. The MI300 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all as N/A. The RX 7600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status of the MI300 is not recorded; the RX 7600M is marked as active. Both were released on the same date: 2023-01-03. The MI300’s predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the RX 7600M’s predecessor is Polaris Mobile. Neither has a successor listed. The MI300 belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation; the RX 7600M belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation. No launch MSRP is recorded for either.

The Verdict

The data indicates a stark split in purpose and measured performance. The AMD Instinct MI300 is a data center compute accelerator with massive memory and bandwidth, but no recorded benchmark scores, no API support for graphics, no display outputs, and a 600 W TDP. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M is a mobile graphics processor with a recorded OpenCL score of 63775, full API support, 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, and a 90 W TDP.

For any workload that requires rendering, standard graphics APIs, or display output, the RX 7600M is the only viable option from the recorded data. Its 89th percentile rank and competitive standing against near rivals, all within 0.7 percent in OpenCL, show it operates in a functional performance tier. The MI300 cannot be used for those tasks at all, as its API list is entirely N/A and it has no display outputs.

For compute workloads that demand extreme memory capacity, the MI300’s 128 GB of HBM3 with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth and 8192-bit bus far exceeds the RX 7600M’s 8 GB GDDR6 at 256.0 GB/s. The MI300 also delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32, more than double the RX 7600M’s 17.27 TFLOPS, and matches that figure in FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the RX 7600M’s FP16 is 34.55 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The MI300’s 1,496.0 GTexel/s texture rate vastly outperforms the RX 7600M’s 269.9 GTexel/s.

The verdict from the data: choose the RX 7600M for any graphics or mobile application, and choose the MI300 for compute tasks requiring massive memory and raw FP32 throughput. The RX 7600M has a clear benchmark advantage where measurements exist; the MI300 has a clear specification advantage in memory and compute density.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600M wins in every category with recorded benchmark or graphics-related data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 63775 is the only measured performance figure in the database, and it sits near the top of its peer group, trailing the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 by only 0.7 percent and leading the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 by 0.1 percent. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling modern graphics workloads. It has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 154.2 GPixel/s, essential for rasterization. It also draws only 90 W, a fraction of the MI300’s 600 W, and runs on PCIe 4.0, making it suitable for mobile integration.

The MI300 wins in raw compute and memory specifications. Its 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus delivers 5.32 TB/s, compared to the RX 7600M’s 8 GB at 256.0 GB/s. Its FP32 performance of 47.87 TFLOPS is nearly three times the RX 7600M’s 17.27 TFLOPS. Its FP16 output of 47.87 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio exceeds the RX 7600M’s 34.55 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The MI300’s 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs dwarf the RX 7600M’s 1,792 and 112, respectively, and its texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s is over five times higher. It uses 5 nm technology with 153,000 million transistors, a scale that reflects its compute-oriented design.

The MI300 also wins in memory bandwidth per watt and per byte, though those metrics derive from specification differences: 5.32 TB/s at 600 W versus 256.0 GB/s at 90 W. The RX 7600M wins in clock speeds, with a boost of 2410 MHz versus the MI300’s 1700 MHz, and a base clock of 1500 MHz versus 1000 MHz. The RX 7600M also has a game clock of 2070 MHz, which the MI300 lacks entirely. The RX 7600M has a higher transistor density in terms of usability for graphics, but the MI300’s density of 150.4M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm² reflects its advanced node.

The MI300 wins for server-style compute tasks, but the data provides no benchmark to quantify that advantage. The RX 7600M wins for any task involving rendering, API compatibility, or mobile deployment. The database records zero wins for the MI300 and zero wins for the RX 7600M in direct head-to-head tests because no such tests exist. The recorded evidence points to the RX 7600M as the measured performer and the MI300 as the specification leader in memory and compute throughput.