AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon 680M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A and the AMD Radeon 680M occupy entirely separate corners of the GPU landscape, and the recorded data confirms they are not direct competitors. The MI300A is a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no benchmark entries in the database. Its percentile ranking sits at 50 among all GPUs, though with an average benchmark score of zero, the database contains no workload results to substantiate that position. The Radeon 680M, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor with active production status, three recorded benchmark scores, and a 57th percentile ranking.

The Radeon 680M wins every measured benchmark by default, simply because the MI300A has no recorded tests. The 680M delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 378, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 23,468, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 21,965. These results place it within a narrow band of desktop discrete GPUs from prior generations. The nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 with an average score of 15,283 (0.1% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 at 15,290 (0.1% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM at 15,199 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 at 15,171 (0.7% higher). The 680M's average benchmark score of 15,270 sits almost exactly between these four competitors, indicating that this integrated part performs at the level of older mid-range discrete cards.

The MI300A wins in architectural scale, memory capacity, and raw compute throughput, though none of those advantages translate into benchmark wins because no benchmarks exist for it. The data shows a clear use-case split: the 680M serves graphics workloads on portable devices, while the MI300A targets compute environments where display output and graphics APIs are irrelevant.

Architecture Differences

The two chips share a manufacturer and foundry but diverge in nearly every architectural decision. The MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. The Radeon 680M uses the Rembrandt+ chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. The process node difference is small, but the transistor counts are not. The MI300A integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The 680M integrates 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, with a density of 63.0 million per square millimeter. The MI300A carries more than eleven times the transistor count on roughly five times the die area.

The core configurations reflect these scale differences. The MI300A contains 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, which aligns with its compute-focused design where pixel output is not a priority. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, and its texture rate reaches 1,915.2 GTexel/s. The 680M contains 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s. The MI300A has roughly 19 times the shading units and 19 times the texture rate of the 680M, but the 680M has actual rasterization hardware while the MI300A has none.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth with a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The 680M uses system shared memory, with its bus width, type, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The MI300A's memory subsystem is purpose-built for massive data movement, while the 680M relies on whatever system RAM the host platform provides.

Clock speeds also differ. The MI300A runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and 2100 MHz boost clock. The 680M runs at 2000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The 680M operates at roughly double the base clock, though its boost advantage is marginal at 100 MHz. The MI300A compensates with far wider execution resources.

Feature support diverges completely. The MI300A lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, which is consistent with a compute accelerator that has no display outputs. The 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 680M also lists 12 ray tracing cores, while the MI300A has none listed. The bus interfaces differ: the MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the 680M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Power draw is dramatically different, with the MI300A rated at 750 W TDP and the 680M at 50 W TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between these two products. The wins counter shows zero for both sides, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. Any direct comparison must therefore rely on the individual benchmark scores recorded for the 680M and the architectural specifications recorded for the MI300A.

The 680M's three benchmark scores provide the only measured performance data in this comparison. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 378 represents a modern DirectX 12 workload, and its Geekbench scores of 23,468 in OpenCL and 21,965 in Vulkan show strong compute performance for an integrated part. The average benchmark score of 15,270 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 and RTX 2060, within 0.5% of the RTX 3050 OEM, and within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 7600. These delta percentages indicate that the 680M essentially matches those discrete GPUs in the database's aggregate scoring, despite being an integrated processor.

The MI300A has no benchmark scores to compare. Its fp32 compute is listed at 61.29 TFLOPS, which is roughly eighteen times the 680M's 3.379 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s is roughly eighteen times the 680M's 105.6 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s stands in contrast to the 680M's system-dependent shared memory. These figures imply a massive compute advantage for the MI300A, but the absence of recorded benchmark results means the database cannot confirm how that theoretical throughput translates into real-world performance.

The 680M's nearest rival comparisons show how tightly clustered its performance is. Four discrete GPUs sit within 0.7% of its average score, with the GTX 580 and RTX 2060 both slightly below at 0.1% and the RTX 3050 OEM and RX 7600 slightly above at 0.5% and 0.7% respectively. This clustering suggests the 680M delivers consistent, predictable performance across the database's benchmark suite, but the MI300A cannot be placed in that same comparison because it has no scores.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI300A outperform the AMD Radeon 680M in any benchmark?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark scores for the MI300A. Its average benchmark score is zero, and its benchmark array is empty. The 680M has three recorded scores: 378 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 23,468 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 21,965 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Radeon 680M and its nearest rivals?

A: The 680M's average benchmark score is 15,270. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 scores 15,283 (0.1% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 scores 15,290 (0.1% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15,199 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 scores 15,171 (0.7% higher). All four rivals fall within a 0.7% band of the 680M.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A has 14,592 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 680M has 768. The MI300A also has 912 texture mapping units compared to the 680M's 48, and the MI300A has 0 ROPs while the 680M has 32.

Q: Can the Instinct MI300A run graphics applications?

A: The recorded data indicates no. The MI300A has no display outputs, and its API support lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all as N/A. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s. The Radeon 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s.

Q: How do the memory systems compare between these two GPUs?

A: The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 680M uses system shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The MI300A's memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the 680M's memory clock is not specified.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The MI300A is rated at 750 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 1150 W. The 680M is rated at 50 W TDP with no suggested power supply listed, consistent with its IGP form factor.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in every specification category recorded in the database. The MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip on CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the 680M uses the Rembrandt+ chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture. The MI300A is fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process, the 680M on 6 nm TSMC. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 13,100 million, die sizes are 1017 mm² versus 208 mm², and transistor densities are 150.4M per mm² versus 63.0M per mm².

Clock specifications differ: the MI300A has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the 680M has a 2000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. Memory configurations are entirely different: the MI300A has 128 GB HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the 680M uses system shared memory with system-dependent characteristics. The MI300A's memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the 680M lists no dedicated memory clock.

Core counts differ substantially: 14,592 shading units versus 768, 912 TMUs versus 48, 0 ROPs versus 32. The 680M has 12 ray tracing cores, while the MI300A lists none. Pixel rates are 0 MPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 105.6 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 3.379 TFLOPS. The 680M also lists FP16 at 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1), while the MI300A has no FP16 figure recorded.

Power and physical characteristics differ: the MI300A has a 750 W TDP, OAM Module slot width, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The 680M has a 50 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. Bus interfaces are PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are absent on the MI300A and portable-device-dependent on the 680M. API support is N/A across the board for the MI300A, while the 680M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ: the MI300A launched on 2023-12-05, and the 680M on 2023-01-02. The 680M has a predecessor (Vega II IGP) and successor (Navi III IGP), while the MI300A lists a predecessor (Radeon Instinct) and no successor. Production status is null for the MI300A and active for the 680M.

The Verdict

The data describes two products that share a manufacturer but nothing else. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a 750 W accelerator with 128 GB of HBM3, 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, 14,592 shading units, and 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no recorded benchmark scores. The AMD Radeon 680M is a 50 W integrated processor with 768 shading units, 32 ROPs, 12 ray tracing cores, and three recorded benchmark scores that place it within 0.7% of four discrete GPUs from the GTX 580 through the RX 7600.

For compute workloads that require massive memory bandwidth and raw FP32 throughput, the MI300A's specifications point to a purpose-built accelerator. The absence of benchmark data means the database cannot confirm its real-world performance, but the architectural scale is unambiguous. The 680M targets graphics and general compute on portable devices, where its API support, ray tracing cores, and benchmark-verified performance make it a functional integrated solution.

The choice between these two depends entirely on the workload. A system requiring display output, graphics API support, and measured benchmark performance would select the 680M. A system requiring maximum compute throughput with no graphics output would select the MI300A. The database contains no evidence that either product can substitute for the other.