AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon 860M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300A and AMD Radeon 860M occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, one being a massive data center accelerator and the other a compact integrated graphics processor for mobile devices. The database contains benchmark records for the Radeon 860M, while the MI300A has no recorded benchmark scores, which limits direct numerical comparison. However, the specification sheets alone reveal stark differences in architecture, compute resources, and intended deployment environments.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database holds no head-to-head benchmark records between these two parts, and the MI300A carries no individual benchmark entries. The Radeon 860M, however, has two recorded test results: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,043. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 26,401, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs in the database.

The Radeon 860M's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its measured performance. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26,421, a delta of -0.1 percent relative to the 860M, meaning the two are statistically tied. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26,331, a delta of 0.3 percent, also essentially equal. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26,553, a delta of -0.6 percent, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 26,683, a delta of -1.1 percent. These results indicate the 860M sits in a narrow performance band where the four closest competitors all fall within roughly one percent of its average score.

Because the MI300A has zero benchmark entries and zero recorded wins, the data cannot quantify its performance against the 860M. The percentile ranking for the MI300A stands at 50, which reflects the absence of measured results rather than a performance ceiling. Any claims about relative speed between these two parts must derive from architectural specifications instead of benchmark outcomes.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Its chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The 860M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. Its chip, Krackan Point, has unknown transistor counts and die dimensions, so density comparisons are impossible from the recorded data.

The compute pipelines diverge sharply. The MI300A contains 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, which explains its pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. Its texture rate reaches 1,915.2 GTexel/s, and its FP32 throughput is 61.29 TFLOPS. The 860M packs 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. Its FP32 output is 3.072 TFLOPS, with FP16 also listed at 3.072 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Memory systems could hardly be more different. The MI300A carries 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective transfer rates. The 860M uses system shared memory, with shared type, shared bus width, and bandwidth described as system dependent. No dedicated memory clock is recorded for the 860M.

Clock speeds show the MI300A operating at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the 860M runs at 600 MHz base and 3000 MHz boost. The 860M's boost clock stands 900 MHz higher, yet its far smaller compute unit count limits aggregate throughput. Power envelopes reflect their roles: the MI300A draws 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the 860M consumes 15 W.

The MI300A exposes no display outputs and supports no graphics APIs, with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all marked N/A. The 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, the 860M via PCIe 4.0 x8.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 61.29 TFLOPS is roughly 20 times the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS. Texture rate favors the MI300A at 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s, a factor near 20 as well. Memory bandwidth shows the greatest gap: 5.32 TB/s against a system dependent figure that, for any typical shared memory configuration, falls far below that mark.

The 860M wins in areas tied to graphics output and API support. It delivers 48.00 GPixel/s of pixel throughput, while the MI300A manages 0 MPixel/s due to its lack of ROPs. The 860M supports modern graphics APIs, making it functional for rendering workloads, whereas the MI300A lists no API support at all. The 860M also wins on power efficiency, drawing 15 W versus 750 W, a 50-fold difference in thermal design power.

Clock speed favors the 860M, whose 3000 MHz boost exceeds the MI300A's 2100 MHz boost. Process node also favors the 860M at 4 nm versus 5 nm, though both come from TSMC. The 860M has an active production status, while the MI300A's production status is not recorded.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded field. Architecture: CDNA 3.0 versus RDNA 3.5. Process node: 5 nm versus 4 nm. Transistor count: 153,000 million versus unknown. Die size: 1017 mm² versus unknown. Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 600 MHz. Boost clock: 2100 MHz versus 3000 MHz. Memory size: 128 GB versus system shared. Memory type: HBM3 versus system shared. Bus width: 8192 bit versus system shared. Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus system dependent.

Shading units: 14,592 versus 512. TMUs: 912 versus 32. ROPs: 0 versus 16. RT cores: not recorded for the MI300A, 8 for the 860M. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS. FP16: not recorded for the MI300A, 3.072 TFLOPS for the 860M.

TDP: 750 W versus 15 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus IGP. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: none versus portable device dependent. DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support: N/A for the MI300A, 12 Ultimate, 4.6, and 1.4 for the 860M. Release dates: 2023-12-05 for the MI300A, 2025-02-28 for the 860M. Predecessors: Radeon Instinct for the MI300A, Navi II IGP for the 860M.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS, while the Radeon 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS, making the MI300A roughly 20 times faster in FP32 operations.

Q: Does the MI300A support DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A for the MI300A. The Radeon 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two?

A: The MI300A has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth across an 8192-bit HBM3 interface. The 860M uses system shared memory, and its bandwidth is recorded as system dependent.

Q: How does the Radeon 860M compare to its closest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The 860M averages 26,401 points. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26,421 (-0.1 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26,331 (+0.3 percent), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26,553 (-0.6 percent), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 26,683 (-1.1 percent).

Q: Which part has a higher boost clock?

A: The Radeon 860M boosts to 3000 MHz, while the MI300A boosts to 2100 MHz. The 860M also has a lower base clock at 600 MHz versus 1000 MHz for the MI300A.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each?

A: The MI300A is rated at 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Radeon 860M is rated at 15 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by workload. The MI300A exists for compute-heavy tasks requiring massive memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 128 GB of HBM3, 8192-bit bus, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth suit data center workloads where FP32 throughput and texture processing dominate. Its zero ROPs and lack of display outputs confirm it is not a graphics rendering device. The absence of benchmark scores in the database means its percentile ranking of 50 reflects no recorded measurements, not a performance level.

The Radeon 860M serves portable devices where graphics output and API compatibility matter. Its 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, 8 RT cores, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 enable rendering workloads. Its 15 W power draw makes it suitable for battery-powered systems. Benchmark results place it in the 72nd percentile, with its average score of 26,401 sitting within one percent of four rival GPUs, indicating competitive performance for its class.

Users needing raw computational throughput, massive memory, and high-bandwidth data movement should select the MI300A. Users needing graphics rendering, API support, and low power consumption should select the Radeon 860M. The two parts do not compete in the same market segment, and the recorded data confirms they target fundamentally different use cases.