AMD Instinct MI300 vs NVIDIA GB10 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI300 and NVIDIA GB10 target fundamentally different deployment scenarios, and the recorded data makes that split explicit. The MI300 is a 600 W, PCIe 5.0 x16 accelerator with no display outputs, built for compute density in server racks. The GB10 is a 140 W integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a single HDMI output, designed for compact or embedded server form factors. Benchmark data exists only for the GB10, which sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database with an average score of 117,393. The MI300 has no recorded benchmark scores and a 50th percentile ranking, meaning its performance cannot be quantified from the database. For buyers requiring validated compute performance, the GB10 is the only option with measurement-backed results. For buyers prioritizing raw memory bandwidth and shading throughput, the MI300's specifications indicate a different class of hardware, but without benchmark data, those specifications cannot be translated into real-world scores.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, manufactured on a 5 nm TSMC process. It integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GB10 uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB20B chip, also on a 5 nm TSMC process, but with a 382 mm² die and no transistor count listed in the database. The MI300's 1017 mm² die is substantially larger than the GB10's 382 mm², reflecting different design priorities: the MI300 packs more execution resources, while the GB10 relies on a smaller, more power-efficient layout.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The GB10 also has 128 GB, but uses LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s. The MI300's bandwidth is roughly 19.5 times higher, a gap that matters for memory-bound workloads. Clock speeds also diverge: the MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, while the GB10 runs at 1665 MHz base and 2418 MHz boost. The GB10's higher clocks partially compensate for its narrower memory interface, but not for the bandwidth deficit.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, producing 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The GB10 has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 384 tensor cores, producing 29.71 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The MI300 leads in raw shading throughput, texture rate (1,496.0 GTexel/s vs. 928.5 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute. The GB10 counters with pixel rendering capability (116.1 GPixel/s vs. 0 MPixel/s) and dedicated tensor and ray tracing hardware, which the MI300 lacks entirely. The MI300's 0 MPixel/s pixel rate reflects its server-oriented design with no display pipeline.

Power and physical characteristics reinforce the architectural split. The MI300 draws 600 W with two 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 1000 W power supply, measuring 267 mm by 111 mm. The GB10 draws 140 W with no power connectors and a suggested 300 W power supply, measuring 150 mm by 51 mm by 150 mm. The MI300 is a full-length expansion card; the GB10 is an IGP. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16, and neither supports DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan APIs, confirming their compute-focused roles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the MI300 versus the GB10. However, the GB10 has two recorded benchmark scores: 120,137 in Geekbench OpenCL and 114,648 in Geekbench Vulkan, averaging to 117,393. The MI300 has no benchmark scores at all, so no direct numerical comparison is possible from the recorded data.

The GB10's nearest rivals provide context for its performance. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 117,088, putting the GB10 0.3% ahead. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 118,976, putting the GB10 1.3% behind. The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB scores 114,395, putting the GB10 2.6% ahead. The RTX A5500 Mobile scores 113,944, putting the GB10 3% ahead. These deltas show the GB10 clustering tightly with workstation and mobile professional GPUs, slightly above the V100 and A5500, slightly below the W7700.

For the MI300, the absence of benchmark data means the database cannot rank it against these rivals. Its 50th percentile ranking versus all GPUs is based on no averaged score, so it carries no comparative weight. The only measurable advantage for the MI300 comes from its specification sheet: FP32 throughput of 47.87 TFLOPS versus the GB10's 29.71 TFLOPS, a 61% lead in raw compute. Memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s is a 19.5x lead. Texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 928.5 GTexel/s is a 61% lead. These figures indicate the MI300 would likely dominate memory-bound and shader-heavy workloads, but they remain unverified by any benchmark in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA GB10 delivers 29.71 TFLOPS. The MI300 leads by 18.16 TFLOPS, a 61% advantage.

Q: Do these GPUs support graphics APIs like DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No. Both the MI300 and GB10 list DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, indicating they are compute-only accelerators without graphics API support.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus for 5.32 TB/s. The GB10 uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus for 273.2 GB/s. The MI300's bandwidth is approximately 19.5 times higher.

Q: Does the GB10 have any benchmark results in the database?

A: Yes. The GB10 scores 120,137 in Geekbench OpenCL and 114,648 in Geekbench Vulkan, with an average of 117,393. The MI300 has no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: What is the power draw for each?

A: The MI300 is rated at 600 W with a suggested 1000 W power supply. The GB10 is rated at 140 W with a suggested 300 W power supply. The GB10 uses no power connectors, while the MI300 uses two 8-pin connectors.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller physical footprint?

A: The GB10 measures 150 mm by 51 mm by 150 mm and is classified as an IGP. The MI300 measures 267 mm by 111 mm, making it significantly longer and taller. The GB10 is the more compact option.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins on raw compute specifications. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 output exceeds the GB10's 29.71 TFLOPS by 61%. Its 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth dwarfs the GB10's 273.2 GB/s, a gap that would favor large matrix operations, dense data sets, and high-throughput inference if benchmarked. The MI300's 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs provide 61% more texture throughput than the GB10's 6,144 shading units and 384 TMUs. The MI300 also has a larger die (1017 mm² vs. 382 mm²) and more transistors (153,000 million vs. unknown), indicating a design optimized for maximum compute per socket. Its 600 W power envelope and 1000 W suggested PSU reflect a data-center accelerator built for sustained load, not efficiency.

The NVIDIA GB10 wins on measured performance and practical deployment. Its average benchmark score of 117,393 places it at the 95th percentile of all GPUs, with verified results in OpenCL and Vulkan. It sits 0.3% above the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, 2.6% above the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and 3% above the RTX A5500 Mobile, while trailing the Radeon PRO W7700 by 1.3%. The GB10's 140 W power draw and 300 W suggested PSU make it suitable for systems where power and cooling are constrained. Its IGP form factor with 150 mm dimensions allows integration into compact server boards, and its single HDMI output enables basic display functionality, something the MI300 lacks entirely. The GB10 also includes 48 ray tracing cores and 384 tensor cores, which the MI300 does not offer, providing hardware acceleration for workloads that use those features.

The GB10's higher clock speeds (1665 MHz base, 2418 MHz boost) versus the MI300's (1000 MHz base, 1700 MHz boost) contribute to its competitive benchmark positioning despite fewer shading units. The GB10's 48 ROPs enable pixel processing (116.1 GPixel/s), while the MI300 has no ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. For any workload requiring rasterization or display output, the GB10 is the only functional choice. For pure compute density, the MI300's specifications suggest superior throughput, but the database lacks the benchmark evidence to confirm it. The verdict from recorded data: the GB10 is the validated performer, the MI300 is the specification leader without proof.