AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon PRO V710 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI300A versus the AMD Radeon PRO V710. The MI300A has an average benchmark score of zero and holds a 50th percentile position among all GPUs, while the PRO V710 has an average score of 58,657 and sits at the 88th percentile. This means the PRO V710 outperforms approximately 38 percent of all recorded GPUs more than the MI300A does, a substantial percentile gap that indicates the PRO V710 is the stronger performer in the database's overall ranking.

The PRO V710 delivers two recorded benchmark results. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 853 points. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 116,460 points. These results place it just ahead of its nearest rivals: the NVIDIA P102-100 scores 58,528 on average, a 0.2 percent delta behind the PRO V710; the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT scores 58,392, a 0.5 percent delta; the Intel Arc A570M scores 58,239, a 0.7 percent delta; and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM scores 58,085, a 1 percent delta. The PRO V710 leads all four rivals by small margins, confirming consistent performance across the board.

The MI300A has no benchmark scores recorded, so no comparative performance data exists for it in the database. Its 50th percentile ranking appears to be a default placement rather than a measured outcome, as the average score of zero indicates no tests were run or recorded. The PRO V710, by contrast, has verified results that place it in the upper tier of the database.

In raw compute specifications, the MI300A shows much higher theoretical throughput figures. Its FP32 performance is listed at 61.29 TFLOPS, while the PRO V710 delivers 27.65 TFLOPS. The MI300A also has a texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 432.0 GTexel/s for the PRO V710. However, these figures do not translate into recorded benchmark wins, as the MI300A lacks any test results to substantiate its theoretical advantages.

The PRO V710's pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s, while the MI300A lists a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, reflecting the latter's lack of raster output units. This is a decisive difference in graphics-oriented workloads, as the PRO V710 can process pixels for display or rendering tasks while the MI300A cannot, despite its higher FP32 and texture throughput.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon PRO V710 is the only one of these two GPUs with measurable performance in the database. Its 88th percentile ranking, average score of 58,657, and two recorded benchmark results make it the clear choice for any workload that relies on actual benchmark validation. The MI300A's 50th percentile placement and zero average score provide no evidence of real-world capability, despite its impressive theoretical specifications.

The PRO V710 outperforms its nearest rivals by margins ranging from 0.2 percent to 1 percent, showing it is competitive within its immediate performance class. The MI300A has no such comparative data, so any assessment of its relative performance is impossible from the recorded measurements. Users seeking a GPU with verified results should select the PRO V710 based on the database evidence alone.

The MI300A's theoretical advantages in FP32 throughput, texture rate, and memory bandwidth are substantial on paper, but the absence of benchmark scores means these advantages are unproven in the database. The PRO V710's actual scores, modest as they are in absolute terms, represent the only real performance data available for these two products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V710 has an average benchmark score of 58,657, while the AMD Instinct MI300A has an average score of 0.

Q: What percentile does each GPU hold in the database?

A: The PRO V710 ranks at the 88th percentile among all GPUs, while the MI300A ranks at the 50th percentile.

Q: How does the PRO V710 compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA P102-100?

A: The PRO V710 has an average score of 58,657, which is 0.2 percent higher than the NVIDIA P102-100's average score of 58,528.

Q: What are the recorded benchmark scores for the PRO V710?

A: The PRO V710 scores 853 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 116,460 in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: Does the MI300A have any recorded benchmark results?

A: No, the MI300A has an empty benchmark array, an average score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed in the database.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference between the two GPUs?

A: The MI300A lists 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, while the PRO V710 lists 27.65 TFLOPS FP32, a difference of 33.64 TFLOPS in favor of the MI300A.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The MI300A uses a chip named Aqua Vanjaram, while the PRO V710 uses Navi 32. The MI300A belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, whereas the PRO V710 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. Both use TSMC's 5 nm process node, but the MI300A contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the PRO V710 contains 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI300A and 81.2M per mm² for the PRO V710.

Clock speeds differ notably. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the PRO V710 has a base clock of 1900 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz. Memory clocks also differ, with the MI300A at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) and the PRO V710 at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the PRO V710 uses 28 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 224-bit bus with 504.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and 0 raster output units. The PRO V710 has 3,456 shading units, 216 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. The PRO V710 includes 54 ray tracing cores, while the MI300A lists none. Power requirements differ substantially: the MI300A has a TDP of 750 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the PRO V710 has a TDP of 158 W with one 8-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The MI300A uses an OAM Module slot width, while the PRO V710 is single-slot. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the PRO V710 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Neither has display outputs.

API support differs completely. The MI300A lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, while the PRO V710 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates also differ, with the MI300A released on December 5, 2023, and the PRO V710 on October 2, 2024. The MI300A's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, while the PRO V710's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, which is designed for compute-intensive workloads such as scientific simulation and AI training. The PRO V710 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, which targets graphics rendering and general-purpose GPU workloads. The MI300A's codename is listed as null, while the PRO V710's codename is Wheat Nas.

The MI300A lacks raster output units entirely, listing a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, which means it cannot perform traditional graphics rasterization. The PRO V710 includes 96 raster output units and delivers a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s. This architectural difference is fundamental: the MI300A is a pure compute accelerator, while the PRO V710 is a full graphics processor with ray tracing support through its 54 RT cores.

Both chips are built on TSMC's 5 nm process, but the MI300A's die is nearly three times larger at 1017 mm² compared to 346 mm² for the PRO V710. The transistor count difference is even larger, with the MI300A containing over five times as many transistors. The MI300A's memory subsystem uses HBM3 with a massive 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the PRO V710 uses GDDR6 with a 224-bit bus and 504.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300A's memory bandwidth is more than ten times higher, reflecting its compute-focused design.

The MI300A supports no graphics APIs, while the PRO V710 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means the PRO V710 can run graphics applications and games, while the MI300A cannot output to a display or process graphics API calls. The MI300A's FP16 performance is not listed, while the PRO V710 lists FP16 at 27.65 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO V710 wins in every measurable category within the database. It has actual benchmark scores, a high percentile ranking, and competitive performance against its nearest rivals. The PRO V710's 88th percentile and average score of 58,657 make it the only choice for any user who relies on verified performance data. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 enables graphics workloads, and its 96 raster output units with 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate allow for traditional rendering tasks. The 54 ray tracing cores add hardware acceleration for ray-traced graphics, and the 28 GB of GDDR6 memory with 504.0 GB/s bandwidth supports moderate-sized datasets.

The AMD Instinct MI300A has no recorded wins in the database. Its theoretical specifications suggest it could excel in compute-heavy tasks: 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, 1,915.2 GTexel/s texture rate, and 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth are all far higher than the PRO V710's figures. The 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus would support extremely large working sets. However, none of these advantages are backed by benchmark results, so the database cannot confirm any real-world win for the MI300A.

The PRO V710 also wins on power efficiency in the data. Its TDP of 158 W with a suggested PSU of 450 W is dramatically lower than the MI300A's 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU. The PRO V710's single-slot form factor and one 8-pin power connector make it far easier to integrate into existing systems, while the MI300A's OAM Module slot width requires specialized mounting. For any user selecting a GPU based on recorded performance, verified compatibility, or graphics capability, the PRO V710 is the clear winner in every category the database tracks.