AMD Instinct MI300 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI300 and NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation serve fundamentally different roles, and the recorded data makes that split clear. The MI300 is a data center accelerator built around massive memory capacity and compute throughput, while the RTX 4000 SFF is a compact workstation card with graphics output and a 95th percentile ranking among all GPUs. The MI300 has no benchmark scores in the database, so its 50th percentile ranking reflects an absence of recorded performance data rather than a competitive position. The RTX 4000 SFF, by contrast, has two recorded benchmark results and an average score of 117,088, placing it 2.4% ahead of the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB and 2.8% ahead of the RTX A5500 Mobile. The MI300 is the choice for compute workloads that need 128 GB of HBM3 memory and 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF is the choice for a workstation environment requiring display outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a 70 W power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The MI300 uses AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The transistor density is 150.4 million per square millimeter. The RTX 4000 SFF uses NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD104 chip, also on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but with 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The MI300 has no render output units, no ray tracing cores, and no tensor cores listed, and it reports a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The RTX 4000 SFF has 64 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores, with a pixel rate of 99.84 GPixel/s.

The MI300 packages 128 GB of HBM3 memory across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF uses 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 280.0 GB/s. The MI300 has no display outputs, while the RTX 4000 SFF provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The MI300 lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, whereas the RTX 4000 SFF supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The power requirements differ sharply: the MI300 is rated at 600 W with 2x 8-pin connectors and a suggested 1000 W power supply, while the RTX 4000 SFF draws 70 W with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W power supply. The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, the RTX 4000 SFF uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s. The RTX 4000 SFF has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and a texture rate of 299.5 GTexel/s. The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the RTX 4000 SFF delivers 19.17 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The MI300 base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 1700 MHz and memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The RTX 4000 SFF base clock is 720 MHz with a boost of 1560 MHz and memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the MI300 and the RTX 4000 SFF. The MI300 has no individual benchmark scores recorded, and its average benchmark score is 0. The RTX 4000 SFF has two recorded results: 124,812 in Geekbench OpenCL and 109,364 in Geekbench Vulkan, producing an average of 117,088.

The RTX 4000 SFF's average score places it at the 95th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GB10 at 117,393 (0.3% ahead of the RTX 4000 SFF), the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 at 118,976 (1.6% ahead), the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395 (2.4% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile at 113,944 (2.8% behind). The RTX 4000 SFF sits between the GB10 and the Tesla V100, within a narrow 4.4% band across all four rivals.

Without benchmark data for the MI300, the comparison of measured performance is limited to architectural specifications. The MI300's FP32 throughput of 47.87 TFLOPS is 2.5 times the RTX 4000 SFF's 19.17 TFLOPS. The MI300's memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s is 19 times the RTX 4000 SFF's 280.0 GB/s. The MI300's 128 GB memory capacity is 6.4 times the RTX 4000 SFF's 20 GB. The RTX 4000 SFF has functional graphics capabilities, including a 99.84 GPixel/s pixel rate and display outputs, while the MI300 reports 0 MPixel/s and no outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation sits at the 95th percentile among all GPUs, while the AMD Instinct MI300 sits at the 50th percentile. The MI300 has no recorded benchmark scores, so its percentile reflects missing data rather than measured performance.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP32 compute output of each card?

A: The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS in FP32, and the RTX 4000 SFF delivers 19.17 TFLOPS in FP32. Both cards report 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratios at the same figures.

Q: Does the MI300 support graphics APIs?

A: The MI300 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The RTX 4000 SFF supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements of each card?

A: The MI300 is rated at 600 W, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested 1000 W power supply. The RTX 4000 SFF is rated at 70 W, uses no power connectors, and has a suggested 250 W power supply.

Q: How does the RTX 4000 SFF compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 117,088 is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GB10 at 117,393, 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 at 118,976, 2.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395, and 2.8% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile at 113,944.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 wins on raw compute scale. Its 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 output is more than double the RTX 4000 SFF's 19.17 TFLOPS. Its 128 GB HBM3 memory dwarfs the 20 GB GDDR6 pool, and the 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is an order of magnitude higher. The 8192-bit memory bus and 1,496.0 GTexel/s texture rate indicate a design aimed at large-scale data processing. The 153,000 million transistor count and 1017 mm² die size reflect a chip built for throughput density, and the PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides a newer host connection than the RTX 4000 SFF's PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300 also has more shading units (14,080 versus 6,144) and more TMUs (880 versus 192).

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF wins on measured performance data and workstation functionality. It has recorded Geekbench scores of 124,812 in OpenCL and 109,364 in Vulkan, giving it a 95th percentile ranking. The MI300 has no recorded benchmarks and sits at the 50th percentile. The RTX 4000 SFF provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, all of which are absent from the MI300's specifications. Its 70 W power draw with no external power connectors and a 250 W suggested power supply contrast with the MI300's 600 W requirement, 2x 8-pin connectors, and 1000 W suggested power supply. The RTX 4000 SFF has 64 ROPs and a 99.84 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the MI300 reports 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s.

The RTX 4000 SFF also wins on physical footprint. Its dimensions are 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, compared to the MI300's 267 mm length and 111 mm height. The RTX 4000 SFF is dual-slot, while the MI300 lists no slot width. The RTX 4000 SFF has a production status of Active, while the MI300 has none recorded.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The MI300 uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the RTX 4000 SFF uses the AD104 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture. The MI300 has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die at 150.4 million per square millimeter. The RTX 4000 SFF has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die at 121.8 million per square millimeter. Both use TSMC at 5 nm.

Clock speeds differ. The MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, with memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The RTX 4000 SFF runs at 720 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Memory configuration differs completely: 128 GB HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s versus 20 GB GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s.

Compute resources differ. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, 0 ROPs, no ray tracing cores, and no tensor cores. The RTX 4000 SFF has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI300 and 99.84 GPixel/s for the RTX 4000 SFF. Texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are 47.87 TFLOPS for the MI300 and 19.17 TFLOPS for the RTX 4000 SFF.

Power and physical specifications differ. The MI300 is 600 W with 2x 8-pin connectors and a 1000 W suggested power supply. The RTX 4000 SFF is 70 W with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested power supply. The MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the RTX 4000 SFF uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300 has no display outputs; the RTX 4000 SFF has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The MI300 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A; the RTX 4000 SFF supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 measures 267 mm by 111 mm with no slot width listed; the RTX 4000 SFF measures 168 mm by 69 mm and is dual-slot. The MI300 was released on 2023-01-03 and has no production status, while the RTX 4000 SFF was released on 2023-03-20, is marked Active, and has a successor in the Blackwell PRO W.