AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon RX 7800M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI300 and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M. The Instinct MI300 has no benchmark entries in the database, while the RX 7800M has a full suite of synthetic test scores. This absence of overlapping measurements means a direct numeric comparison of application performance is not possible from the database.

The RX 7800M delivers an average benchmark score of 27,883 across its recorded tests. Its strongest single result comes from Geekbench Vulkan at 126,668, with Geekbench OpenCL close behind at 120,778. The PassMark G3D score of 17,613 and the PassMark GPU Compute score of 9,342 further characterize its compute-oriented performance. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it records 2,994 points. Lower-level API results include PassMark DirectX 11 at 176, PassMark DirectX 9 at 174, PassMark DirectX 10 at 99, and PassMark DirectX 12 at 89. The PassMark G2D score of 892 indicates modest 2D throughput.

Because the MI300 lacks any benchmark scores, its percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs is based on no recorded measurements, which places it below the RX 7800M's percentile of 73. The RX 7800M's nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow band: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 sits 0.2% above it, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X is 0.3% below, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is 0.5% below, and the AMD FirePro S7150 is 0.8% below. This clustering indicates the RX 7800M performs within a tight competitive range around these four cards.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators diverge fundamentally in their design targets. The Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built for data center compute with no display outputs and no graphics API support. The Radeon RX 7800M uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Navi 32 chip, designed for mobile graphics with full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support.

Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the transistor counts differ enormously. The MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The RX 7800M contains 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, with a density of 81.2 million per mm². The MI300's die is roughly three times the physical size and holds more than five times the transistor count.

Memory systems reflect their divergent roles. The MI300 supports 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s. The MI300's memory bandwidth is more than twelve times higher, a direct consequence of its HBM3 stack configuration.

Clock behavior also differs. The RX 7800M runs with a base clock of 1295 MHz, a game clock of 2145 MHz, and a boost clock of 2335 MHz. The MI300 operates at a 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The RX 7800M's higher clocks reflect a power envelope of 180 W, while the MI300 consumes up to 600 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors with a suggested 1000 W power supply. The RX 7800M has no power connectors and is classified as an integrated graphics package (IGP).

The compute pipelines are structured differently. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, producing a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The RX 7800M has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 ray tracing cores, delivering 560.4 GTexel/s and 224.2 GPixel/s. The MI300's FP32 throughput is 47.87 TFLOPS, while the RX 7800M reaches 35.87 TFLOPS; both operate at a 1:1 FP16 ratio.

Bus interfaces also differ: the MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7800M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, whereas the RX 7800M has no recorded dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The database reveals a clear split in strengths. The Instinct MI300 wins on raw compute scale: its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, 128 GB HBM3 memory, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 1,496.0 GTexel/s texture rate all exceed the RX 7800M's corresponding figures. The MI300's 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs give it a decisive advantage in throughput-heavy workloads such as large matrix operations, scientific simulation, and AI training, where memory capacity and bandwidth dominate.

The Radeon RX 7800M wins in graphics functionality and efficiency. It is the only one of the two with display outputs, a full graphics API stack, and ray tracing support with 60 RT cores. Its 96 ROPs enable a pixel rate of 224.2 GPixel/s, which the MI300 cannot match at 0 MPixel/s. The RX 7800M also operates at 180 W versus 600 W, making it viable in portable devices. Its boost clock of 2335 MHz is substantially higher than the MI300's 1700 MHz, and its base clock of 1295 MHz surpasses the MI300's 1000 MHz. The RX 7800M has a higher percentile ranking of 73 against all GPUs, compared to the MI300's 50.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 35.87 TFLOPS for the Radeon RX 7800M.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either card support ray tracing?

A: Only the RX 7800M lists ray tracing cores, with 60 RT cores. The MI300 has no RT core data recorded.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP and requires two 8-pin power connectors with a suggested 1000 W power supply. The RX 7800M has a 180 W TDP and lists no power connectors.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The RX 7800M supports portable device dependent outputs. The MI300 has no display outputs.

Q: How do their benchmark percentiles compare?

A: The MI300 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 7800M ranks at the 73rd percentile.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products:

• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 (MI300) versus RDNA 3.0 (RX 7800M)
• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram versus Navi 32
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus Navi Mobile (RX 7000M)
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus 28,100 million
• Die Size: 1017 mm² versus 346 mm²
• Transistor Density: 150.4M / mm² versus 81.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz versus 1295 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1700 MHz versus 2335 MHz
• Game Clock: not applicable versus 2145 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective versus 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 128 GB versus 12 GB
• Memory Type: HBM3 versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit versus 192 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 14,080 versus 3,840
• TMUs: 880 versus 240
• ROPs: 0 versus 96
• RT Cores: not listed versus 60
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 224.2 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 560.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 47.87 TFLOPS versus 35.87 TFLOPS
• FP16: 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 35.87 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 600 W versus 180 W
• Slot Width: not listed versus IGP
• Power Connectors: 2x 8-pin versus None
• Suggested PSU: 1000 W versus not listed
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL Support: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan Support: N/A versus 1.4
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 111 mm versus no recorded dimensions
• Release Date: 2023-01-03 versus 2024-09-10
• Production Status: not listed versus Active
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus Polaris Mobile
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 50 versus 73
• Average Benchmark Score: 0 versus 27,883

The Verdict

The data points to two entirely different products that happen to share a manufacturer and process node. The Instinct MI300 is a data center compute accelerator with massive memory capacity, HBM3 bandwidth, and FP32 throughput, but it has no graphics pipeline, no display outputs, and no benchmark scores in the database. Its 600 W power draw and PCIe 5.0 interface place it firmly in server racks.

The Radeon RX 7800M is a mobile graphics processor with a complete feature set: ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and display support. Its recorded benchmarks show it competing closely with the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, AMD Radeon Pro W5500X, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, and AMD FirePro S7150, all within a 1% performance band. Its 180 W TDP and IGP classification suit portable systems.

The MI300 should be selected for workloads that demand extreme memory bandwidth and capacity, such as large-scale data center compute, where its 5.32 TB/s and 128 GB HBM3 provide the necessary resources. The RX 7800M should be selected for graphics rendering, ray-traced workloads, and general GPU compute in mobile platforms, where its 60 RT cores, 96 ROPs, and full API support deliver functionality the MI300 lacks. The MI300's 50th percentile ranking with no benchmark data offers no evidence of real-world performance, while the RX 7800M's 73rd percentile is supported by ten recorded test scores.