AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon RX 7700S Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the AMD Radeon RX 7700S. This absence of shared test results means the two products cannot be ranked against each other through identical workloads in the current dataset. Each unit was evaluated under different conditions, and the MI300 has no recorded benchmark scores at all, while the RX 7700S has three entries.

The RX 7700S delivers its strongest showing in the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 62,983. Its Vulkan result reaches 36,380, and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test produces 2,185. These figures place the RX 7700S at the 78th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 33,849.

The MI300, by contrast, holds a 50th percentile ranking with an average benchmark score of zero. That percentile figure reflects the absence of measured performance data rather than a literal performance level. The database treats the MI300 as a compute accelerator with no rasterization output, no pixel rate, and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. Benchmark suites designed for graphics workloads therefore cannot generate scores for it.

For the RX 7700S, the nearest rivals in the database provide context for its average score. The AMD Radeon HD 7950 sits 0.3% below with an average score of 33,951. The AMD Radeon RX 480 trails by 0.4% at 33,997. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB comes in 0.5% higher at 33,694, and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 sits 0.7% above at 33,622. These deltas are remarkably tight, all within a single percentage point, which indicates the RX 7700S occupies a crowded performance band where small variations in workload composition can flip the ranking.

The MI300 has no nearest rivals listed, so no comparative delta values exist for it. Its role in the database is defined by its architectural specifications rather than by competitive benchmark outcomes.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Instinct MI300 have no benchmark scores while the RX 7700S has three?

A: The MI300 is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no pixel rate, and no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. Graphics benchmark suites cannot run on it. The RX 7700S is a graphics card with full API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so it can execute standard GPU benchmarks.

Q: Which product has the higher transistor count?

A: The MI300 uses 153,000 million transistors, while the RX 7700S uses 13,300 million. The MI300 therefore contains more than eleven times the transistor count of the RX 7700S.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300 offers sixteen times the capacity and roughly eighteen and a half times the bandwidth.

Q: What process nodes do the two chips use?

A: The MI300 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 7700S uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The MI300's die measures 1017 mm², compared to 204 mm² for the RX 7700S.

Q: Does the RX 7700S support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RX 7700S includes 32 ray tracing cores. The MI300 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the power requirement for each product?

A: The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W and requires a 1000 W suggested power supply, with 2x 8-pin power connectors. The RX 7700S has a TDP of 100 W, uses no power connectors, and is classified as an integrated graphics processor for portable devices.

Architecture Differences

The MI300 and RX 7700S diverge at the most fundamental architectural level. The MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, which is designed for data center compute workloads. The RX 7700S uses RDNA 3.0, which targets mobile graphics rendering. This distinction shapes every other specification in the database.

The silicon itself reflects this split. The MI300's chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, measures 1017 mm² on a 5 nm TSMC process and packs 153,000 million transistors. The RX 7700S uses the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, measuring 204 mm² on a 6 nm TSMC process with 13,300 million transistors. Transistor density tells the same story in different terms: the MI300 achieves 150.4 million transistors per mm², while the RX 7700S reaches 65.2 million per mm².

Clock behavior also differs meaningfully. The MI300 runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz. The RX 7700S starts higher at 1500 MHz base and reaches 2500 MHz boost, with a game clock of 2200 MHz. The MI300's lower clocks reflect its focus on sustained compute throughput rather than peak frequency. The RX 7700S's higher clocks suit interactive graphics workloads where burst performance matters.

Memory architecture separates the two entirely. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 on a 8192-bit bus, generating 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7700S uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, generating 288.0 GB/s. The MI300's memory clock is listed as 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the RX 7700S runs its memory at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The bus width difference of 8192 bits versus 128 bits explains why the MI300 achieves vastly higher bandwidth despite lower memory clocks.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units and 880 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs and zero pixel rate. The RX 7700S has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The MI300's texture rate reaches 1,496.0 GTexel/s, while the RX 7700S manages 320.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput shows the MI300 at 47.87 TFLOPS versus 20.48 TFLOPS for the RX 7700S. In FP16, the MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS on a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 7700S hits 40.96 TFLOPS on a 2:1 ratio.

The MI300 has no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, and no display outputs. The RX 7700S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with display output dependent on the portable device. The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7700S uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Physical characteristics differ as well. The MI300 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height with a 600 W TDP. The RX 7700S is classified as an integrated graphics processor with no listed dimensions, a 100 W TDP, and no power connectors.

The Verdict

The data presents two products with almost no functional overlap. The MI300 is a compute accelerator built for massive parallel throughput, while the RX 7700S is a mobile graphics processor designed for rendering. Neither product can substitute for the other in the database's recorded parameters.

The MI300's specifications point toward server-side compute tasks. Its 128 GB HBM3 memory, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 performance indicate a device intended for large-scale data processing. The absence of display outputs, graphics APIs, and ROPs confirms that it is not meant for visual output. Its 600 W TDP and 1000 W suggested power supply position it in a rack-mounted environment.

The RX 7700S serves the opposite purpose. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory, 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 20.48 TFLOPS FP32 performance suit gaming and content creation on portable systems. The 32 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support enable modern rendering features. Its 100 W TDP and lack of power connectors fit the integrated graphics slot on a laptop motherboard.

Benchmark data reinforces this split. The RX 7700S posts scores in graphics-focused tests, with its nearest rivals clustered within one percentage point. The MI300 has no benchmark scores because no graphics test can execute on it. Users seeking a graphics card should consider the RX 7700S. Users seeking a compute accelerator should consider the MI300. The database records no scenario where the two compete.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Navi 33 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1700 MHz | 2500 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 2200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

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

| Shading Units | 14,080 | 2,048 |

| TMUs | 880 | 128 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | N/A | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 160.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,496.0 GTexel/s | 320.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 47.87 TFLOPS | 20.48 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) | 40.96 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 100 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | N/A |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm 10.5 inches length, 111 mm 4.4 inches height | Not listed |

Where Each One Wins

The MI300 wins in every metric related to raw compute capacity. Its FP32 throughput of 47.87 TFLOPS more than doubles the RX 7700S's 20.48 TFLOPS. Texture rate reaches 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 320.0 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s dwarfs the RX 7700S's 288.0 GB/s. Memory capacity of 128 GB versus 8 GB provides sixteen times the working set for large models. The MI300's 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs supply parallel execution resources that the RX 7700S's 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs cannot match. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface doubles the transfer rate of the RX 7700S's PCIe 4.0 x16.

The RX 7700S wins in every metric related to graphics rendering. It has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 160.0 GPixel/s, while the MI300 has zero ROPs and zero pixel rate. The RX 7700S includes 32 ray tracing cores, which the MI300 lacks entirely. Its API support spans DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300 supports none of these. The RX 7700S produces display output through the portable device, whereas the MI300 has no outputs. Higher base and boost clocks of 1500 MHz and 2500 MHz versus 1000 MHz and 1700 MHz favor the RX 7700S for latency-sensitive tasks. Its 100 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for mobile integration, while the MI300 requires a 600 W supply and dedicated power wiring.

The RX 7700S holds benchmark scores in the database, with an average of 33,849 and a 78th percentile ranking. The MI300 holds no scores and sits at the 50th percentile by default. For any workload involving graphics output, ray tracing, or standard game APIs, the RX 7700S is the only option with recorded capability. For any workload involving massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, or sustained compute throughput, the MI300's specifications place it in a different performance class entirely.