AMD Instinct MI300 vs NVIDIA Jetson T4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for the AMD Instinct MI300 against the NVIDIA Jetson T4000. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and zero recorded wins in either direction. This means any comparison must rely strictly on the technical specifications recorded in the database, not on executed performance tests. The absence of measured results is itself a data point: these two accelerators occupy different segments, and the database has not yet produced comparative scores for them.

What the recorded data does show is a massive disparity in raw compute resources. The AMD Instinct MI300 lists 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and zero raster operations units. Its FP32 throughput is recorded at 47.87 TFLOPS, with FP16 also at 47.87 TFLOPS on a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA Jetson T4000, by contrast, lists 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its FP32 figure is 4.700 TFLOPS, with FP16 identically at 4.700 TFLOPS. In raw shading throughput, the MI300 delivers roughly ten times the FP32 compute of the T4000. The texture rate tells a similar story: 1,496.0 GTexel/s for the MI300 versus 73.44 GTexel/s for the T4000. That is a factor of more than twenty in texture processing capability.

Memory bandwidth further separates the two. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The T4000 uses 64 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus, yielding 273.2 GB/s. The MI300's bandwidth is nearly twenty times higher. Memory capacity also favors the MI300 by a factor of two. The pixel rate, however, favors the T4000: it records 24.48 GPixel/s, while the MI300 records 0 MPixel/s. This reflects the MI300's absence of ROPs, a design choice consistent with its compute-focused role.

Clock speeds differ in an interesting way. The T4000 runs at a fixed 1530 MHz for both base and boost, with no variation. The MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz, so its operating range spans 70% above its base. The T4000's memory clock is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective, while the MI300's memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. The MI300's higher memory clock is paired with a far wider bus, which explains the bandwidth gap.

Power draw diverges sharply. The MI300 is rated at 600 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1000 W and dual 8-pin power connectors. The T4000 is rated at 90 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W and no power connectors listed. The MI300 consumes nearly seven times the power budget of the T4000. Physical dimensions reflect this: the MI300 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the T4000 measures 87 mm in length, 100 mm in height, and 15 mm in width. The MI300 is a full-length accelerator board; the T4000 is an integrated graphics package (IGP) form factor.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two devices built for different workloads, not direct competitors. The AMD Instinct MI300 is a data-center compute accelerator with massive FP32 and FP16 throughput, enormous memory capacity, and extreme bandwidth. It has no display outputs, no rasterization hardware, and no graphics API support. Its 600 W TDP and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface position it for server racks with dedicated power delivery. The NVIDIA Jetson T4000, despite its "T4000" name, is a Blackwell-architecture server chip with a 90 W TDP, 64 GB of LPDDR5X, and a PCIe 5.0 x8 interface. It includes 12 ray-tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, features the MI300 does not list at all.

For workloads that stress raw FP32 or FP16 math, the MI300 is the clear choice based on compute figures alone. Its 47.87 TFLOPS in both precisions dwarfs the T4000's 4.700 TFLOPS. For texture-heavy operations, the MI300's 1,496.0 GTexel/s dominates. For memory-bound tasks, the MI300's 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is unmatched by the T4000's 273.2 GB/s. The MI300 also offers double the memory capacity at 128 GB versus 64 GB.

The T4000, however, has advantages in specific areas. It records a real pixel rate of 24.48 GPixel/s, while the MI300 records zero. It includes ray-tracing cores and tensor cores, neither of which the MI300 lists. Its fixed 1530 MHz clock means predictable performance without boost variability. Its 90 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU make it deployable in far more modest systems. Its IGP slot width and compact dimensions (87 mm length) allow installation where the MI300's 267 mm length would not fit.

The database assigns both devices a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs, and both have zero average benchmark scores. That parity in ranking does not reflect real performance equivalence; it reflects the absence of measured data. The launch MSRP for the T4000 is 1,999 USD, recorded once here. No launch MSRP exists for the MI300 in the database.

Buyers should choose based on workload. The MI300 suits computation at scale: high-throughput FP32/FP16 math, large memory footprints, and enormous bandwidth demands. The T4000 suits edge or embedded server scenarios where power, size, and integration matter more than raw throughput, and where ray tracing or tensor operations are required.

FAQ

Q: Which chip has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 records 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA Jetson T4000 records 4.700 TFLOPS. The MI300's figure is approximately ten times higher.

Q: What memory types and capacities do the two use?

A: The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The T4000 uses 64 GB of LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either chip support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: The T4000 lists 12 ray-tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The MI300 lists neither field, recording null for both RT cores and tensor cores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300 has a 600 W TDP, a suggested PSU of 1000 W, and uses 2x 8-pin power connectors. The T4000 has a 90 W TDP, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and lists no power connectors.

Q: Why does the MI300 have a pixel rate of zero?

A: The MI300 records 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The T4000 records 16 ROPs and a pixel rate of 24.48 GPixel/s. The MI300 is not designed for rasterization output.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: Both chips are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The MI300 has a die size of 1017 mm² with 153,000 million transistors. The T4000 has a die size of 391 mm² with transistor count listed as unknown.

Specification Differences

The two devices differ across nearly every recorded specification field. Clock speeds: the MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost; the T4000 runs at 1530 MHz for both base and boost. Memory: the MI300 uses 128 GB HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth; the T4000 uses 64 GB LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units: 14,080 versus 1,536. TMUs: 880 versus 48. ROPs: 0 versus 16. RT cores: null versus 12. Tensor cores: null versus 64. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 24.48 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 73.44 GTexel/s. FP32: 47.87 TFLOPS versus 4.700 TFLOPS. FP16: 47.87 TFLOPS versus 4.700 TFLOPS. TDP: 600 W versus 90 W. Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 1000 W versus 250 W. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x8. Slot width: null versus IGP. Dimensions: 267 mm by 111 mm versus 87 mm by 100 mm by 15 mm. Display outputs: none for both. APIs: N/A for both. Release dates: 2023-01-03 for the MI300, 2026-01-04 for the T4000. Production status: null for the MI300, Active for the T4000. Transistors: 153,000 million versus unknown. Die size: 1017 mm² versus 391 mm². Transistor density: 150.4M / mm² versus null. Launch MSRP: null for the MI300, 1,999 USD for the T4000. Predecessors: Radeon Instinct for the MI300, Server Hopper for the T4000. Successors: null for the MI300, Server Rubin for the T4000.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation. The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 uses the Blackwell architecture with the GB10B chip, part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. Both are built on TSMC's 5 nm process, but the die sizes diverge: the MI300 spans 1017 mm² with 153,000 million transistors, while the T4000 spans 391 mm² with an unknown transistor count. The MI300's transistor density is recorded at 150.4M / mm²; the T4000 has no density figure.

The MI300's architecture omits rasterization hardware entirely, recording zero ROPs and zero pixel rate. It also lists no ray-tracing cores and no tensor cores. The T4000's Blackwell architecture includes 12 ray-tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, along with 16 ROPs and a 24.48 GPixel/s pixel rate. This indicates the T4000 retains graphics pipeline elements, despite having no display outputs. The MI300 is a pure compute accelerator, optimized for FP32 and FP16 throughput with a 1:1 ratio for both precisions. The T4000 matches that 1:1 FP16 ratio but at a much smaller scale.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI300 uses HBM3 stacked memory across an 8192-bit bus, a configuration built for bandwidth saturation. The T4000 uses LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus, a configuration built for lower power and simpler integration. The MI300's power delivery requires dual 8-pin connectors and a 1000 W PSU; the T4000 draws power through its IGP slot with no connectors and a 250 W PSU. The MI300's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the T4000's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin. The T4000 is marked Active in production status, while the MI300's status is not recorded.