AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a stark contrast between these two AMD accelerators. The AMD Instinct MI300 has no individual benchmark scores in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT, on the other hand, has a full suite of ten recorded benchmark results, an average score of 22,549, and a percentile ranking of 67. This means the RX 7700 XT sits above the MI300 in overall standing, though the MI300's lack of consumer-oriented test data makes direct numerical comparison impossible.

The RX 7700 XT delivers its strongest recorded result in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 138,383 points. Its next best is the Passmark G3D score of 22,547, followed by the Passmark GPU Compute score of 12,912. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test yields 3,316 points. Lower legacy scores include 1,161 in Passmark G2D, 294 in Passmark DirectX 9, 232 in Passmark DirectX 11, 119 in Passmark DirectX 10, and 79 in Passmark DirectX 12. The Vulkan score from Geekbench is 46,443.

Looking at the RX 7700 XT's nearest rivals in the database, the data shows a tight grouping. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile averages 22,435, which is 0.5% behind the RX 7700 XT. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile averages 22,729, putting it 0.8% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 averages 22,895, which is 1.5% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 averages 22,170, sitting 1.7% behind. These small deltas indicate the RX 7700 XT occupies a competitive mid-range position, with no single rival more than 1.7% away in either direction.

For the MI300, the absence of recorded benchmarks means the database cannot compute any head-to-head win counts. The wins field shows zero for both parts, reflecting the lack of comparative test data. The MI300's percentile of 50 versus the RX 7700 XT's 67 suggests the database places the MI300 at the median of all GPUs, while the RX 7700 XT sits above that median. This is a notable divergence, but the MI300's role as a compute accelerator without display outputs or consumer APIs likely explains its placement outside typical gaming-oriented benchmark suites.

Architecture Differences

The architecture story begins with the process node, where both chips use a 5 nm process from TSMC. The similarities end there. The MI300, built on CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1,017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The RX 7700 XT, using RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip under the Wheat Nas codename, packs 28,100 million transistors onto a 346 mm² die, giving a density of 81.2 million per square millimeter. The MI300 has more than five times the transistor count and nearly three times the die area.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The MI300 includes 14,080 shading units and 880 texture mapping units, with zero raster operation units. The RX 7700 XT has 3,456 shading units, 216 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation units. The MI300 also lists 54 ray tracing cores for the RX 7700 XT, while the MI300 has no RT core count recorded. The pixel rate for the MI300 is 0 MPixel/s due to its lack of ROPs, while the RX 7700 XT achieves 244.2 GPixel/s. Texture rates show the MI300 at 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 549.5 GTexel/s for the RX 7700 XT.

Memory configurations set these parts far apart. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8,192-bit bus, achieving 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7700 XT uses 12 GB of GDDR6 across a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s. The MI300's memory bandwidth is over twelve times higher, and its capacity is more than ten times larger. Clock speeds also differ: the MI300 runs at a base of 1,000 MHz and a boost of 1,700 MHz, with memory at 1,300 MHz or 5.2 Gbps effective. The RX 7700 XT has a base of 1,435 MHz, a game clock of 2,171 MHz, and a boost of 2,544 MHz, with memory at 2,250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective.

Floating-point output reveals the MI300's compute focus. It delivers 47.87 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The RX 7700 XT delivers 35.17 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, also at 1:1. The MI300 leads by roughly 36% in raw FP32 throughput. The power draw reflects this: the MI300 has a TDP of 600 W with a suggested PSU of 1,000 W, while the RX 7700 XT draws 245 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W. Both use dual 8-pin power connectors.

The bus interface also differs. The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7700 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are absent on the MI300, which lists no outputs at all. The RX 7700 XT provides 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C. API support follows the same pattern: the MI300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the RX 7700 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Physical dimensions show the MI300 at 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the RX 7700 XT is 267 mm long, 135 mm tall, and 50 mm wide with a dual-slot design.

Where Each One Wins

The data does not provide direct benchmark comparisons, so the wins must be inferred from architectural specifications. The MI300 wins in raw compute throughput, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and transistor density. Its FP32 output of 47.87 TFLOPS exceeds the RX 7700 XT's 35.17 TFLOPS. Its 128 GB of HBM3 with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the 12 GB GDDR6 with 432.0 GB/s. These figures point toward workloads involving large datasets, high-bandwidth streaming, and dense matrix operations.

The RX 7700 XT wins in clock speeds, rasterization capability, and feature support. Its boost clock of 2,544 MHz is nearly 50% higher than the MI300's 1,700 MHz boost. Its 96 ROPs enable a pixel rate of 244.2 GPixel/s, where the MI300 produces none. The RX 7700 XT also has 54 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the MI300's recorded specifications. The RX 7700 XT's API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 makes it suitable for gaming and graphics applications, while the MI300's N/A API listings indicate a non-rendering compute role.

The RX 7700 XT also wins on efficiency in the database's ranking system. Its percentile of 67 versus the MI300's 50 shows that, within the full GPU landscape, the RX 7700 XT is placed higher. Its average benchmark score of 22,549 comes from real test data, while the MI300's zero average reflects no recorded tests. The RX 7700 XT's nearest rival deltas, ranging from 0.5% behind to 1.7% ahead, show a competitive field where this card holds its own against similar-tier options.

For memory-bound tasks, the MI300's 8,192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth provide an overwhelming advantage. The RX 7700 XT's 192-bit bus and 432.0 GB/s are suited for standard gaming resolutions but cannot approach the MI300's throughput. Similarly, the MI300's 880 texture mapping units versus 216 on the RX 7700 XT, and its 14,080 shading units versus 3,456, indicate a compute-heavy design optimized for parallel workloads rather than frame rendering.

The Verdict

The data indicates two entirely different products serving different purposes. The AMD Instinct MI300 is a data-center compute accelerator, evidenced by its CDNA 3.0 architecture, 128 GB HBM3 memory, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, 600 W TDP, no display outputs, and no consumer API support. It is designed for large-scale computation where memory capacity and bandwidth dominate. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 output, along with its 1,496.0 GTexel/s texture rate, confirm a focus on raw throughput.

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a consumer graphics card, shown by its RDNA 3.0 architecture, 12 GB GDDR6 memory, 96 ROPs, 54 ray tracing cores, display outputs, and full DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support. Its 244.2 GPixel/s pixel rate and 2,544 MHz boost clock make it suitable for rasterization and ray-traced gaming. Its average benchmark score of 22,549 and percentile of 67 place it in the mid-to-upper range of the database's GPU rankings.

For a user building a gaming or workstation PC with standard graphics needs, the RX 7700 XT is the only viable option, as the MI300 cannot output video or run consumer graphics APIs. For a server or compute cluster handling massive datasets, the MI300's memory and compute resources far exceed the RX 7700 XT. The RX 7700 XT has a launch MSRP of 449 USD, and the MI300 has no listed launch price. The choice comes down to workload type, not performance parity, since the database provides no direct benchmark overlap between them.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT has an average benchmark score of 22,549, while the AMD Instinct MI300 has an average score of 0.

Q: How does the RX 7700 XT compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7700 XT is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile, 0.8% behind the RTX 4060 Mobile, 1.5% behind the RTX 2080, and 1.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5700.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory, while the RX 7700 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The RX 7700 XT has 54 ray tracing cores. The MI300 has no recorded ray tracing core count.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W and a suggested PSU of 1,000 W. The RX 7700 XT has a TDP of 245 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Why does the MI300 have no benchmark scores?

A: The database lists no individual benchmark results for the MI300, and its API support is marked N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for standard graphics testing.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300 | AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Navi 32 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 28,100 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 346 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 81.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1435 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1700 MHz | 2544 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 432.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 14080 | 3456 |

| TMUs | 880 | 216 |

| ROPs | 0 | 96 |

| RT Cores | N/A | 54 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 244.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 549.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 47.87 TFLOPS | 35.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) | 35.17 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 245 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C |

| DirectX Support | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | 267 mm x 135 mm x 50 mm |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2023-09-05 |