AMD Instinct MI300 vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300 and NVIDIA N1X 48SM represent two fundamentally different interpretations of high-performance computing hardware. The MI300 is a massive dedicated accelerator built for compute density, while the N1X 48SM is an integrated graphics processor designed for bandwidth efficiency. The recorded data shows two GPUs with identical memory capacity and bus interface, but nearly every other specification diverges sharply. The MI300 uses HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus, while the N1X 48SM uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus. Both sit at the 50th percentile in the database, though neither has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals, making direct performance comparisons reliant on architectural and specification analysis.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either GPU. The head-to-head comparison therefore rests on the measured specification data, which reveals a decisive advantage for the AMD Instinct MI300 in raw compute throughput. The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS FP32. That difference represents a 66% advantage for the AMD part. The FP16 figures mirror this exactly, with both GPUs operating at a 1:1 ratio to their FP32 rates. The MI300's 47.87 TFLOPS FP16 output stands 66% above the N1X 48SM's 28.83 TFLOPS.

Memory bandwidth tells a similarly lopsided story. The MI300 achieves 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth through its 8192-bit HBM3 interface, a figure that dwarfs the N1X 48SM's 273.2 GB/s from LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. The AMD part offers roughly 19.5 times the memory bandwidth of the NVIDIA part. Texture rate follows the same pattern: the MI300's 1,496.0 GTexel/s is 66% higher than the N1X 48SM's 900.9 GTexel/s. The pixel rate reverses this trend, as the MI300 reports 0 MPixel/s while the N1X 48SM achieves 112.6 GPixel/s.

Clock speeds show an interesting inversion. The MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz, while the N1X 48SM starts lower at 741 MHz but boosts much higher to 2346 MHz. This higher boost clock does not compensate for the NVIDIA part's smaller shader array and narrower memory interface. The MI300's 14,080 shading units outnumber the N1X 48SM's 6,144 by a factor of 2.3. Texture mapping units also favor AMD: 880 TMUs versus 384 TMUs. The N1X 48SM counters with 48 ROPs and 48 ray tracing cores, while the MI300 reports 0 ROPs, no ray tracing cores, and no tensor cores in the recorded data. The NVIDIA part includes 192 tensor cores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. AMD builds the MI300 on the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. NVIDIA builds the N1X 48SM on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB20B chip, also on TSMC's 5 nm process. Both share the same foundry and process node, but the physical implementations diverge dramatically. The MI300 die measures 1017 mm² and packs 153,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The N1X 48SM die measures 382 mm² with transistor count listed as unknown. The AMD die is 2.7 times larger in area.

Memory architecture separates these parts completely. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, a configuration built for feeding massive compute arrays. The N1X 48SM also has 128 GB, but uses LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus. The memory clocks differ as well: the MI300 runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the N1X 48SM runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. Despite the N1X's faster per-pin effective rate, the MI300's 32 times wider bus produces vastly superior aggregate bandwidth. The MI300's power delivery requires 2x 8-pin connectors and a 1000 W suggested PSU, while the N1X 48SM is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed.

The N1X 48SM includes features absent from the MI300's recorded specification. It has display outputs with 1x HDMI, while the MI300 has no outputs. It includes 48 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. The MI300's ROP count is 0, and it has no ray tracing or tensor core entries. The N1X 48SM is an integrated graphics processor with a slot width of IGP, while the MI300 is a dedicated card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, as does the N1X 48SM, so the host interface does not differentiate them.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins in raw compute throughput. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 ratings, 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth, 1,496.0 GTexel/s texture rate, and 14,080 shading units position it for compute-heavy workloads that saturate large data arrays. The 128 GB HBM3 pool with an 8192-bit bus suits applications that repeatedly access large datasets, such as dense matrix operations or large model inference. The MI300's 153,000 million transistors and 1017 mm² die indicate a design optimized for maximum parallel throughput rather than power efficiency or system integration.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins in graphics pipeline features and integration. It delivers 112.6 GPixel/s pixel throughput, a capability the MI300 entirely lacks with its 0 MPixel/s rating. The N1X 48SM includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor operations that the MI300 does not list. Its IGP form factor requires no power connectors and no separate card slot, making it suitable for compact systems. The 1x HDMI output allows direct display connection, something the MI300 cannot do. The N1X 48SM's 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, while far below the MI300, remains adequate for its narrower compute focus.

Clock speed favors the NVIDIA part in per-core execution. The N1X 48SM boosts to 2346 MHz versus the MI300's 1700 MHz, a 38% advantage in peak clock. This does not offset the MI300's 2.3 times shader count advantage, but it does mean the N1X 48SM executes individual threads faster. The 48 ROPs on the N1X 48SM enable rasterization work that the MI300 cannot perform. The MI300's 0 ROP count and 0 pixel rate confirm it is not designed for display or raster workloads.

FAQ

Q: How do the FP32 performance figures compare between the MI300 and N1X 48SM?

A: The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, which is 66% higher than the N1X 48SM's 28.83 TFLOPS. The FP16 figures are identical to each part's FP32 rating, with both operating at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: Both have 128 GB of memory, but the MI300 uses HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the N1X 48SM uses LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300's memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, and the N1X 48SM's is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing and tensor core support?

A: The N1X 48SM includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The MI300 lists no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores in the recorded data.

Q: What is the physical form factor difference?

A: The MI300 is a dedicated card measuring 267 mm by 111 mm, requiring 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 1000 W suggested PSU. The N1X 48SM is an IGP with no power connectors, no listed dimensions, and a slot width of IGP.

Q: Do either GPUs support display output?

A: The N1X 48SM has 1x HDMI output. The MI300 has no display outputs and reports a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

Q: What process nodes do the two chips use?

A: Both use TSMC's 5 nm process. The MI300 chip is Aqua Vanjaram with a 1017 mm² die and 153,000 million transistors. The N1X 48SM chip is GB20B with a 382 mm² die and unknown transistor count.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the N1X 48SM uses Blackwell 2.0 with the GB20B chip. The MI300's base clock is 1000 MHz and boost is 1700 MHz; the N1X 48SM's base is 741 MHz and boost is 2346 MHz. Shading units: 14,080 versus 6,144. TMUs: 880 versus 384. ROPs: 0 versus 48. Ray tracing cores: none listed versus 48. Tensor cores: none listed versus 192. The MI300's transistor count is 153,000 million on a 1017 mm² die with 150.4 million per mm² density. The N1X 48SM's transistor count is unknown on a 382 mm² die with no density listed.

Memory differs in type, bus width, and bandwidth: HBM3 with 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s for AMD, LPDDR5X with 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s for NVIDIA. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective versus 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 112.6 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 900.9 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are 47.87 TFLOPS versus 28.83 TFLOPS. The MI300 has a 600 W TDP, 2x 8-pin connectors, and a 1000 W suggested PSU. The N1X 48SM has unknown TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The MI300 has no display outputs; the N1X 48SM has 1x HDMI. The MI300 measures 267 mm by 111 mm; the N1X 48SM has no listed dimensions. The MI300's production status is not listed, while the N1X 48SM is Active. The MI300 released on 2023-01-03 and the N1X 48SM on 2026-05-31. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. The AMD Instinct MI300 is the compute-oriented part. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth, 14,080 shading units, and 128 GB HBM3 pool make it the choice for raw number crunching and massive data movement. Its 600 W TDP and 1000 W suggested PSU indicate a power-hungry dedicated accelerator for systems built around sustained compute loads. The absence of display outputs and ROPs confirms it is not a graphics card in the traditional sense.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is the integrated, graphics-capable part. Its 112.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, 48 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores give it a functional graphics pipeline that the MI300 lacks entirely. Its IGP form factor with no power connectors suits low-power or space-constrained builds. The 1x HDMI output and 128 GB LPDDR5X memory provide a complete display-capable solution, though its 273.2 GB/s bandwidth and 28.83 TFLOPS FP32 place it well below the MI300 in raw throughput.

For compute density, the MI300's 66% FP32 lead, 19.5 times memory bandwidth, and 2.7 times larger die with 153,000 million transistors are decisive. For integrated graphics with ray tracing, tensor acceleration, and display output, the N1X 48SM is the only viable option between these two. The MI300's 1700 MHz boost clock versus the N1X 48SM's 2346 MHz does not change the overall picture, as shader count and memory bandwidth dominate. The choice depends on whether the workload requires the MI300's massive compute throughput or the N1X 48SM's integrated feature set.