AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon 820M Comparison

The AMD Instinct MI300A and AMD Radeon 820M occupy opposite extremes of the GPU spectrum, one a massive accelerator module and the other a power-sipping integrated graphics processor. The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the two, and neither has an average benchmark score or a percentile ranking beyond the median baseline. This absence of measured data means the analysis must rest entirely on the architectural and specification differences recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no entries in the head-to-head benchmark section for these two parts. There are zero wins recorded for either side, and no benchmark scores exist for either GPU. The Instinct MI300A shows an average benchmark score of 0, and the Radeon 820M likewise shows 0. Both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, which reflects the absence of recorded performance data rather than any actual equivalence in capability.

Without measured results, the raw specification deltas serve as the only quantitative basis for comparison. The Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon 820M produces 716.8 GFLOPS. The ratio between them is substantial: the MI300A offers roughly 85 times the FP32 throughput. Texture rate tells a similar story, with the MI300A at 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s for the 820M, a difference of approximately 85.5 times. Pixel rate inverts the pattern, as the MI300A records 0 MPixel/s while the 820M manages 11.20 GPixel/s. The MI300A has no ROPs and no display outputs, which explains the zero pixel throughput.

Clock behavior also diverges sharply. The MI300A operates with a 1000 MHz base clock and a 2100 MHz boost, while the 820M starts at 400 MHz and boosts to 2800 MHz. The 820M reaches a higher boost frequency, but the MI300A compensates with 14592 shading units against 128, 912 texture mapping units against 8, and 8192 bit of memory bus width versus a system-shared configuration. The memory subsystem of the MI300A is fixed at 128 GB of HBM3 with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the 820M relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent.

The Verdict

The data indicates these are not competing products. The Instinct MI300A is a compute accelerator with a 750 W thermal design power, an OAM module slot width, and no display outputs. The Radeon 820M is a 15 W integrated GPU with 4 ROPs, 2 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The MI300A targets raw compute workloads that require massive FP32 throughput and 128 GB of dedicated HBM3 memory. The 820M targets mobile devices that need modest graphics output and API compatibility.

The release dates place the MI300A on 2023-12-05 and the 820M on 2025-02-28, with the 820M still marked as active production while the MI300A has no production status recorded. The MI300A lists the Radeon Instinct as its predecessor, while the 820M lists the Navi II IGP. Neither has a successor recorded.

For anyone selecting between the two, the choice is dictated by the workload. The MI300A has no display outputs, which means it cannot drive a monitor. The 820M has portable-device-dependent display outputs, meaning it can, but only as part of a mobile system. The MI300A uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and a 1150 W suggested power supply, while the 820M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and requires no suggested PSU. The MI300A has no power connectors, presumably relying on the OAM module socket, and the 820M likewise has no power connectors as an IGP.

Where Each One Wins

The Instinct MI300A wins in every compute-heavy metric recorded. Its FP32 output of 61.29 TFLOPS dwarfs the 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s compares to 22.40 GTexel/s. The 128 GB of HBM3 with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth stands against a system-shared memory pool with system-dependent bandwidth. The 8192 bit bus width is a fixed, dedicated pathway, whereas the 820M shares the system memory bus. The MI300A also has 14592 shading units and 912 TMUs, which are orders of magnitude beyond the 820M's 128 and 8, respectively.

The Radeon 820M wins in the areas of display output, API support, and power efficiency. It has 4 ROPs and a pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s, while the MI300A has 0 ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI300A records N/A for all three APIs. The 820M has 2 ray tracing cores; the MI300A has none listed. The 820M's 15 W TDP compares to 750 W for the MI300A, and the 820M has a 2800 MHz boost clock versus 2100 MHz for the MI300A.

The process node differs as well. The MI300A uses a 5 nm process from TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The 820M uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, but the database records its transistor count, die size, and density as unknown. The MI300A's architecture is CDNA 3.0 with the chip name Aqua Vanjaram, while the 820M uses RDNA 3.5 with the chip name Krackan Point 2. The MI300A belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, and the 820M belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A records 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32, while the AMD Radeon 820M records 716.8 GFLOPS, making the MI300A approximately 85 times higher.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 820M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the database lists 2 ray tracing cores for the 820M. The Instinct MI300A has no ray tracing cores recorded.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI300A output video to a display?

A: No, the MI300A records no display outputs and has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Radeon 820M has portable-device-dependent display outputs and a pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The Instinct MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192 bit bus width and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 820M uses system-shared memory with system-shared bus width and system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI300A records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the thermal design power figures?

A: The Instinct MI300A has a 750 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 1150 W. The Radeon 820M has a 15 W TDP and no suggested power supply listed.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural families. The Instinct MI300A uses CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-focused architecture, while the Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5, the graphics-oriented architecture. The chip names reflect this: Aqua Vanjaram for the MI300A and Krackan Point 2 for the 820M. The MI300A is built on a 5 nm TSMC process with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the 820M uses a 4 nm TSMC process with unknown transistor count and die size.

The MI300A has no ROPs, no ray tracing cores, and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. This is consistent with a compute accelerator that does not render graphics. The 820M has 4 ROPs, 2 ray tracing cores, and full API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A's 14592 shading units and 912 TMUs vastly exceed the 820M's 128 shading units and 8 TMUs, but the 820M still has a pixel pipeline while the MI300A does not.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different. The MI300A has 128 GB of dedicated HBM3 with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth over an 8192 bit bus, while the 820M shares system memory entirely. The 820M's memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as system dependent, meaning they vary with the host platform. The MI300A's memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the 820M has no dedicated memory clock.

Specification Differences

The process node differs: 5 nm for the MI300A versus 4 nm for the 820M, both from TSMC. The MI300A has 153,000 million transistors and a die size of 1017 mm²; the 820M has unknown transistor count and die size. The MI300A's transistor density is 150.4M per mm²; the 820M has no recorded density.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The MI300A runs at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The 820M runs at 400 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost. The memory clock for the MI300A is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the 820M uses system-shared memory with no dedicated clock.

Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all differ. The MI300A has 14592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The MI300A has no ray tracing cores; the 820M has 2. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI300A and 11.20 GPixel/s for the 820M. Texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s for the MI300A and 22.40 GTexel/s for the 820M. FP32 is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS. The 820M also records FP16 at 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the MI300A has no FP16 figure listed.

Power and physical specifications diverge completely. The MI300A has a 750 W TDP, OAM Module slot width, no power connectors, a 1150 W suggested PSU, and PCIe 5.0 x16. The 820M has a 15 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are absent on the MI300A and portable-device-dependent on the 820M. The MI300A has no recorded dimensions, and neither does the 820M.

The API support table is a clean split: the MI300A has N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the 820M has 12 Ultimate (12_2), 4.6, and 1.4 respectively. Release dates are 2023-12-05 for the MI300A and 2025-02-28 for the 820M. The production status is unrecorded for the MI300A and active for the 820M. Predecessors are Radeon Instinct and Navi II IGP respectively, with no successors recorded for either. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.