AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon 780M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no shared benchmark scores between the AMD Instinct MI300A and the AMD Radeon 780M. The MI300A has no benchmark entries, while the 780M holds three recorded test scores. Direct numerical comparison is therefore impossible. The available comparisons must rely on architectural specifications and the 780M's standalone results.

The 780M's average benchmark score of 17,588 places it at the 61st percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 560, averages 17,551, a delta of 0.2 percent in the 780M's favor. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 scores 17,639, putting the 780M 0.3 percent behind. The AMD Radeon HD 7790 scores 17,666, 0.4 percent higher. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 scores 17,509, 0.5 percent lower. These deltas are narrow, indicating the 780M sits in a tightly contested performance band.

Within its individual tests, the 780M shows a wide spread. The Geekbench Vulkan score is 33,683, the highest recorded. The Geekbench OpenCL score is 18,602. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result is 480, a comparatively low number that reflects the workload's demands. This spread suggests the 780M excels in compute-oriented APIs but struggles in specific rasterization-heavy scenarios.

The MI300A carries no benchmark scores, no average score, and a 50th percentile ranking. Its `avgBenchmarkScore` is zero. The database records zero wins for either side in head-to-head testing. Any performance conclusion must therefore derive from specification analysis, not measured results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the AMD Instinct MI300A boosts to 2100 MHz. The 780M's base clock is 800 MHz, versus 1000 MHz for the MI300A.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 780M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MI300A has 14,592 shading units. The 780M has 768. The MI300A also has 912 texture mapping units, while the 780M has 48.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates?

A: The MI300A records 0 MPixel/s pixel rate and 1,915.2 GTexel/s texture rate. The 780M records 92.80 GPixel/s and 139.2 GTexel/s. The 780M has 32 ROPs; the MI300A has 0 ROPs.

Q: What is the FP32 performance?

A: The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS FP32. The 780M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS FP32. The 780M also lists FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1), while the MI300A does not list FP16.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The MI300A uses a 5 nm process with a 1017 mm² die and 153,000 million transistors. The 780M uses a 4 nm process with a 178 mm² die and 25,390 million transistors. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI300A and 142.6M per mm² for the 780M.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, designed for the Instinct (MIx) generation. The 780M uses RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Phoenix chip, part of the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: CDNA targets compute acceleration, while RDNA targets graphics rendering.

The MI300A's process node is 5 nm from TSMC, with a die size of 1017 mm². Transistor count reaches 153,000 million. The 780M uses 4 nm TSMC, a 178 mm² die, and 25,390 million transistors. The MI300A's transistor density is 150.4M per mm², higher than the 780M's 142.6M per mm². The MI300A's die is nearly six times larger, reflecting its memory and compute focus.

The MI300A has 14,592 shading units and 912 TMUs but zero ROPs. The 780M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI300A's zero ROPs indicate no direct pixel output capability. The 780M includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature the MI300A does not list. Neither GPU lists tensor cores.

Memory architecture differs completely. The MI300A integrates 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 780M relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. This makes the MI300A's memory subsystem a dedicated, fixed resource, while the 780M's depends on the host system.

The MI300A has no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, all listed as N/A. The 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with motherboard dependent display outputs. The MI300A is a compute accelerator with no graphics pipeline; the 780M is a fully capable integrated graphics processor.

Power and interface specifications diverge. The MI300A has a 750 W TDP and uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors, requiring a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The 780M has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP, has no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU. The MI300A connects via PCIe 5.0 x16; the 780M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300A | AMD Radeon 780M |

|----------------|---------------------|------------------|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Phoenix |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 25,390 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 178 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 142.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 14,592 | 768 |

| TMUs | 912 | 48 |

| ROPs | 0 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | N/A | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 92.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,915.2 GTexel/s | 139.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 61.29 TFLOPS | 8.909 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | N/A | 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | N/A |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2024-01-30 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Navi II IGP |

| Successor | N/A | Navi III IGP |

| Production Status | N/A | Active |

| Percentile | 50 | 61 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 17,588 |

The Verdict

The data indicates two products with no shared measurement basis. The MI300A has zero benchmark scores and zero recorded wins. The 780M has three scores, a 61st percentile ranking, and an average of 17,588. The MI300A's 50th percentile ranking with no scores suggests it sits in the database as a specification entry without validated performance data.

For compute workloads, the MI300A's specifications dominate. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 is roughly 6.9 times the 780M's 8.909 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s against system dependent bandwidth is a categorical advantage. The 128 GB HBM3 capacity versus system shared memory means the MI300A can hold far larger datasets. The 750 W TDP versus 15 W indicates a server-scale accelerator with corresponding power requirements.

For graphics workloads, the 780M is the only viable option. The MI300A has no display outputs, no DirectX, no OpenGL, no Vulkan, and zero ROPs. The 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, has 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. Its 92.80 GPixel/s pixel rate is the only recorded pixel throughput between the two.

The 780M's benchmark results place it within 0.5 percent of its nearest rivals, all four of which score between 17,509 and 17,666. This consistency indicates the 780M performs at a predictable level relative to established GPUs. The RTX 4060's 0.3 percent edge is negligible in practical terms.

The MI300A cannot be recommended for any graphics task based on recorded data. The 780M cannot be recommended for large-scale compute tasks based on its memory limitations. Each fills a distinct role, and the database does not support crossover claims.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins in raw compute throughput. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 dwarfs the 780M's 8.909 TFLOPS. Texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s shows a 13.8 times advantage in texture-heavy compute. The 8192-bit memory bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth are class-leading specifications, while the 780M's bandwidth is system dependent and unbounded by its own hardware.

The MI300A wins in memory capacity. 128 GB of dedicated HBM3 versus system shared memory is a structural advantage for large models and datasets. The 780M must compete with the host CPU for memory resources, and its bandwidth varies with system configuration.

The 780M wins in graphics features. It is the only one with ray tracing cores, listing 12. It has 32 ROPs versus zero. Its pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s is real; the MI300A's is 0 MPixel/s. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the 780M, while the MI300A has none.

The 780M wins in API support. DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 are all present. The MI300A lists N/A for all three. Any software requiring these APIs must use the 780M.

The 780M wins in power efficiency. Its 15 W TDP versus 750 W means a 50 times difference in power draw. The MI300A requires a suggested PSU of 1150 W; the 780M requires no suggested PSU.

The 780M wins in measured performance. It has three benchmark scores averaging 17,588, a 61st percentile ranking. The MI300A has no scores and a 50th percentile ranking. The 780M's nearest rival comparison shows it within 0.5 percent of four established GPUs, confirming its competitive position.

The 780M wins in availability. Its production status is Active. The MI300A lists no production status. The 780M has a successor, Navi III IGP; the MI300A lists none.

The MI300A wins in transistor count and density. 153,000 million transistors versus 25,390 million, and 150.4M per mm² versus 142.6M per mm². This reflects a more complex, compute-oriented design.

The MI300A wins in bus interface width. PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300A's interface provides more bandwidth for host communication.

The selection depends entirely on workload. For graphics, rendering, or any consumer API usage, the 780M is the only choice with supporting data. For server-scale compute with massive memory needs, the MI300A's specifications point clearly in its direction, though no benchmark scores validate its real-world performance.