AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Instinct MI300A and the AMD Radeon PRO W7400?

A: The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip on a 5 nm process. The W7400 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, on a 6 nm process. The MI300A is built for compute workloads, while the W7400 is a workstation graphics card.

Q: How do the two cards differ in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300A offers approximately 30 times more bandwidth than the W7400.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance of each card?

A: The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The MI300A is roughly 7.8 times faster in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: What interfaces and display outputs do the cards support?

A: The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has no display outputs. The W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The MI300A is an OAM Module with no power connectors, while the W7400 is a Single-slot card with no power connectors.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI300A requires substantially more power and is designed for server systems.

Q: Which card has ray tracing capability?

A: The W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores. The MI300A does not list ray tracing cores in the recorded data. The MI300A also has no pixel rate recorded, while the W7400 has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 61.29 TFLOPS dwarfs the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. Texture rate also heavily favors the MI300A: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is another complete mismatch, with 5.32 TB/s on the MI300A versus 172.8 GB/s on the W7400. The MI300A also carries 128 GB of HBM3 memory, which is sixteen times the W7400's 8 GB of GDDR6. Any workload that scales with memory capacity, bandwidth, or sheer floating point throughput belongs to the MI300A.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in areas that matter for a workstation graphics card. It has 64 raster operation units, giving it a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, while the MI300A records 0 MPixel/s. The W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores, which the MI300A does not list. The W7400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI300A lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs; the MI300A has no display outputs. The W7400 is also a practical single-slot card at 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width, with a 55 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU.

The data shows two tools for different jobs. The MI300A is a computational workhorse with no graphics output. The W7400 is a display-capable workstation card with modern graphics API support and ray tracing.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, which targets data center compute. The W7400 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, designed for graphics rendering and workstation visualization. The chips themselves are very different: the MI300A uses a chip called Aqua Vanjaram, while the W7400 uses Navi 33, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish.

The process nodes differ. The MI300A is fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the W7400 uses TSMC's 6 nm process. Transistor counts reflect the scale gap. The MI300A integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The W7400 packs 13,300 million transistors onto a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2M per mm². The MI300A's die is roughly five times larger, and it carries more than eleven times the transistors.

The compute resources are fundamentally different. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units, but no raster operation units recorded. The W7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The MI300A also has no ray tracing cores listed, while the W7400 has 28.

Memory architecture separates the two completely. The MI300A uses HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, generating 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7400 uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, generating 172.8 GB/s. The MI300A's memory bus is 64 times wider.

The API support tells the same story. The MI300A lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A is not a graphics card in the traditional sense; it is a compute accelerator. The W7400 is a full-featured graphics card.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the MI300A runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the W7400 runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective.

Shading units differ: 14,592 on the MI300A versus 1,792 on the W7400. Texture mapping units differ: 912 versus 112. Raster operation units differ: 0 on the MI300A versus 64 on the W7400. Ray tracing cores are absent on the MI300A and number 28 on the W7400.

Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s on the MI300A and 70.40 GPixel/s on the W7400. Texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s on the MI300A versus 123.2 GTexel/s on the W7400. FP32 compute is 61.29 TFLOPS on the MI300A versus 7.885 TFLOPS on the W7400. The W7400 also records FP16 at 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1), while the MI300A has no FP16 figure listed.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI300A is an OAM Module; the W7400 is Single-slot. Neither card uses power connectors. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The MI300A has no display outputs. The W7400 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI300A has no recorded dimensions; the W7400 measures 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm. Release dates differ: the MI300A launched 2023-12-05, while the W7400 launched 2025-08-02. The MI300A's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the W7400's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega. The W7400 has an active production status, while the MI300A does not list one.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records no direct head-to-head benchmark scores between these two cards. Both cards individually show an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile versus all GPUs of 50. With no measured benchmark results, the comparison relies on the recorded hardware specifications.

The specification data shows the MI300A's largest advantage in memory bandwidth. The MI300A delivers 5.32 TB/s, which is 5,320 GB/s, versus the W7400's 172.8 GB/s. That is a gap of roughly 30 times. For workloads that stream large datasets, this difference is the defining factor.

FP32 compute follows a similar pattern. The MI300A's 61.29 TFLOPS is about 7.8 times the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. Texture rate shows a 15.5 times gap: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. Shading unit count is 8.1 times higher on the MI300A, and texture mapping units are 8.1 times higher as well.

The W7400's advantages are in graphics-specific features. Its pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s is meaningful because the MI300A records 0 MPixel/s. The W7400's 28 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration that the MI300A does not list. API support also favors the W7400: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 versus N/A on all three for the MI300A.

Power efficiency is a specification where the W7400 leads. The W7400 draws 55 W to produce 7.885 TFLOPS, while the MI300A draws 750 W to produce 61.29 TFLOPS. Per watt, the W7400 delivers roughly 0.143 TFLOPS per watt, while the MI300A delivers about 0.082 TFLOPS per watt. The W7400 is the more efficient card in terms of FP32 per watt, though the MI300A delivers far more absolute compute.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Instinct MI300A for compute-intensive workloads. It offers 128 GB of HBM3 memory, 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and 1,915.2 GTexel/s of texture rate. It has no display outputs and no graphics API support, so it is not a card for a desktop workstation with monitors attached. Its 750 W TDP and OAM Module form factor place it in server racks, not standard PC cases.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the choice for workstation graphics. It has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 28 ray tracing cores. Its 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 64 raster operation units enable traditional rendering. Its 55 W TDP and Single-slot design make it easy to integrate into a workstation. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth are modest, but sufficient for typical workstation graphics workloads.

The benchmark database shows no direct comparison scores, so the verdict rests on specifications. The MI300A wins on raw compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, texture rate, and shading resources. The W7400 wins on display connectivity, graphics API compatibility, ray tracing, pixel throughput, power draw, and physical integration ease. Neither card outperforms the other across the board; they serve mutually exclusive use cases. A user who needs computation should pick the MI300A. A user who needs graphics output should pick the W7400.