AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Instinct MI300A contains no benchmark entries. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500, however, has a full set of benchmark scores across nine different tests. This makes a direct head-to-head comparison impossible based on the available measurements. The database shows zero wins for each product in the head-to-head section, which reflects the absence of comparable test results rather than a performance verdict.

For the Radeon PRO W7500, the benchmark suite reveals a clear pattern. The strongest result appears in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 68,634. The Geekbench OpenCL score lands at 58,213. These two results indicate that the card handles compute workloads through both major API paths with respectable capability. The Passmark G3D score of 13,368 and the Passmark GPU Compute score of 5,910 place the card in a mid-range position among all tested GPUs.

The older DirectX tests show a different story. Passmark DirectX 9 returns 200, DirectX 11 returns 125, DirectX 10 returns 65, and DirectX 12 returns 46. These descending scores across API generations suggest that the card's architecture prioritizes modern workloads over legacy paths. The Passmark G2D score of 1,174 indicates modest 2D performance, which aligns with a workstation-oriented product rather than a gaming-focused one.

The overall average benchmark score for the Radeon PRO W7500 is 16,415. Its percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database is 59. The nearest rivals listed in the database provide context for this score. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell matches with an average score of 16,408, a delta of 0 percent. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 16,361, which is 0.3 percent lower. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 16,351, 0.4 percent lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16,504, which sits 0.5 percent above the Radeon PRO W7500. These tight margins show that the W7500 clusters within a narrow performance band around its direct competitors.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon PRO W7500?

A: The average benchmark score is 16,415, with a percentile ranking of 59 against all GPUs in the database.

Q: How does the Radeon PRO W7500 compare to the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell has an average score of 16,408, which is a 0 percent delta from the Radeon PRO W7500's score. The two cards are effectively tied in the recorded data.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI300A have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The MI300A has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile rank of 50.

Q: What is the highest individual benchmark score for the Radeon PRO W7500?

A: The Geekbench Vulkan test returns 68,634, which is the highest recorded score among all nine benchmark entries.

Q: Which DirectX version shows the lowest score for the Radeon PRO W7500?

A: Passmark DirectX 12 returns a score of 46, the lowest among the DirectX tests. The DirectX 9 score of 200 is the highest among those legacy tests.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for the Radeon PRO W7500?

A: The launch MSRP is 429 USD.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture. It is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a die size of 1017 mm². The transistor density calculates to 150.4 million per square millimeter. The card belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation and succeeds the Radeon Instinct line.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 13,300 million transistors on a die size of 204 mm². The transistor density calculates to 65.2 million per square millimeter. The card belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation and succeeds the Radeon Pro Vega.

The architectural split is fundamental. CDNA 3.0 targets compute acceleration with no graphics pipeline, while RDNA 3.0 is a graphics architecture with full rendering capabilities. The MI300A has zero ROPs, zero pixel rate, and no display outputs. The W7500 has 64 ROPs, a pixel rate of 108.8 GPixel/s, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

The MI300A uses HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus, while the W7500 uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus. The memory bandwidth difference is substantial: 5.32 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. The MI300A also carries no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, all listed as N/A. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The MI300A has 14,592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units. The W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The MI300A has no RT cores listed. The texture rate for the MI300A is 1,915.2 GTexel/s, compared to 190.4 GTexel/s for the W7500. The FP32 compute for the MI300A is 61.29 TFLOPS, while the W7500 delivers 12.19 TFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The process node differs: 5 nm for the MI300A, 6 nm for the W7500. Transistor counts differ by an order of magnitude: 153,000 million versus 13,300 million. Die size spans 1017 mm² versus 204 mm².

Clock speeds show a different pattern. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The W7500 has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz. The memory clock for the MI300A is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the W7500 runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration differs completely: 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth for the MI300A, versus 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth for the W7500. The shading units, TMUs, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 figures all differ as listed above. The W7500 has RT cores (28), while the MI300A has none listed.

The power envelope differs sharply. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The W7500 has a TDP of 70 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. Both use no power connectors, but the slot widths differ: OAM Module for the MI300A, Single-slot for the W7500.

Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300A, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7500. Display outputs differ: none for the MI300A, four DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7500. The W7500 has physical dimensions of 216 mm length, 115 mm height, and 20 mm width. The MI300A has none listed.

Release dates differ: December 5, 2023 for the MI300A, August 2, 2023 for the W7500. The production status for the W7500 is Active, while the MI300A has none listed. The W7500 has a launch MSRP of 429 USD; the MI300A has none listed.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of roles. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a compute-oriented accelerator with massive memory capacity, high bandwidth, and no graphics output. Its FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS and texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s position it for data center and high-performance compute tasks. The lack of display outputs and API support for graphics confirms this focus.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation graphics card. It has display outputs, full API support, ray tracing cores, and a modest power draw of 70 W. Its benchmark scores place it in the 59th percentile, with performance statistically tied to the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell and within 0.5 percent of the GeForce RTX 5090 D V2. The card delivers consistent results across compute and graphics tests.

Users should select the MI300A when the workload requires massive memory bandwidth and high FP32 compute without any need for display output. Users should select the W7500 when the workload requires graphics rendering, display connectivity, or compatibility with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The MI300A has no recorded benchmark scores, so its performance claims rest entirely on architectural specifications. The W7500 has a full benchmark suite confirming its measured capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A wins in raw compute specifications. Its FP32 of 61.29 TFLOPS is more than five times the W7500's 12.19 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s is roughly ten times the W7500's 190.4 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s exceeds the W7500's 256.0 GB/s by a factor of about twenty. Its memory capacity of 128 GB is sixteen times the W7500's 8 GB. The MI300A also uses a wider bus (8192 bit versus 128 bit), a newer PCIe interface (5.0 x16 versus 4.0 x8), and a larger transistor count by an order of magnitude.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins in practical workstation usability. It has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A has no display outputs and no graphics API support. The W7500 has ray tracing cores, while the MI300A has none. The W7500 has a pixel rate of 108.8 GPixel/s, while the MI300A has zero. The W7500 draws 70 W versus 750 W for the MI300A, a tenfold difference in power consumption. The W7500 has a physical card form factor with listed dimensions, while the MI300A uses an OAM Module slot.

The database records benchmark wins only for the W7500, as the MI300A has no test scores. The W7500's percentile rank of 59 versus the MI300A's 50 reflects this data gap, not a direct comparison. In terms of measured results, the W7500 delivers verified performance within 0.5 percent of its nearest rivals. The MI300A's advantages remain theoretical without benchmark confirmation. For any workload requiring graphics output, the W7500 is the only viable choice based on the recorded specifications. For pure compute without display needs, the MI300A's architectural specifications point to significantly higher throughput, but the database contains no measurements to confirm that expectation.