AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a stark contrast in how these two AMD accelerators are measured. The AMD Instinct MI300A has no benchmark scores listed in the database, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has two recorded Geekbench results. The Radeon PRO W7600 achieves an OpenCL score of 81,528 and a Vulkan score of 92,688. Its average benchmark score across those tests is 87,108. The Instinct MI300A, by contrast, carries an average benchmark score of 0, meaning no comparable measurement exists in the database.

The Radeon PRO W7600 sits in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, a strong position that indicates it outperforms the vast majority of recorded graphics cards. The Instinct MI300A, however, is placed in the 50th percentile with no benchmark data to support its standing. This percentile field reflects a database-wide ranking, and with no scores behind it, the MI300A's position cannot be interpreted as a performance claim.

When comparing the W7600 to its nearest rivals, the data shows a narrow competitive field. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87,445, which is 0.4% higher than the W7600's average, placing the W7600 just behind it. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX scores 85,637, which is 1.7% lower, meaning the W7600 leads that card. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile scores 91,134, a 4.4% advantage over the W7600. The desktop NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 91,671, a 5% lead. These deltas are all small, indicating the W7600 competes in a tight cluster of professional workstation GPUs.

For the MI300A, no head-to-head benchmark table exists, and no nearest rivals are listed. The database therefore offers no measured comparison between the two cards. Any direct numerical comparison of compute performance between the MI300A and W7600 is impossible from the recorded facts. The only reliable conclusion is that the W7600 has verified benchmark results and the MI300A does not.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has an average benchmark score of 87,108. The AMD Instinct MI300A has an average benchmark score of 0, indicating no recorded benchmark results exist for it.

Q: How does the Radeon PRO W7600 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The W7600 trails the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 by 0.4%, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile by 4.4%, and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 by 5%. It leads the NVIDIA CMP 40HX by 1.7%.

Q: What are the individual Geekbench scores for the Radeon PRO W7600?

A: The W7600 scores 81,528 in Geekbench OpenCL and 92,688 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS. The MI300A is numerically higher, but no benchmark score exists to validate real-world performance.

Q: What is the database percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The Radeon PRO W7600 sits in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. The Instinct MI300A sits in the 50th percentile, though this is based on no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: Does the Instinct MI300A have any display outputs?

A: No. The Instinct MI300A has no display outputs. The Radeon PRO W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A wins on raw compute specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS is more than three times the W7600's 19.99 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s dwarfs the W7600's 312.3 GTexel/s. Memory capacity is another decisive advantage: the MI300A carries 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s. In any workload where raw memory bandwidth and capacity matter, the MI300A is in a different class.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins on verified benchmark performance, power efficiency, and practical workstation features. It has actual recorded scores in the database, and its 93rd percentile ranking confirms it performs well against the wider GPU field. Its power draw is 130 W versus the MI300A's 750 W, and its suggested PSU is 300 W versus 1,150 W. It is a single-slot card with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it usable in a conventional workstation. The MI300A is an OAM module with no display outputs and no power connectors, meaning it requires a different physical and electrical infrastructure.

The W7600 also wins on API support. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, so it has no mainstream graphics API compatibility in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Instinct MI300A uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the W7600 uses a 6 nm process at the same foundry. The MI300A packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The W7600 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2M per mm².

Clock speeds also differ. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The W7600 has a base clock of 1720 MHz and a boost clock of 2440 MHz. The W7600 runs faster in raw clock terms, but the MI300A's larger chip and wider execution resources compensate.

Memory specifications are completely different. The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The W7600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300A's memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the W7600's is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The W7600's memory runs faster per pin, but the MI300A's massive bus width gives it far more total bandwidth.

Shader and render output configurations differ. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs. Its pixel rate is listed as 0 MPixel/s. The W7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 156.2 GPixel/s.

Power and physical requirements diverge sharply. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W, is an OAM Module with no power connectors, and requires a suggested PSU of 1,150 W. The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W, is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, and requires a suggested PSU of 300 W. The W7600 measures 241 mm by 115 mm, while the MI300A has no recorded dimensions.

The bus interface differs as well. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The production status of the MI300A is not recorded, while the W7600 is marked as Active.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip. It belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation and its predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct. The W7600 uses RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation and its predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega.

The MI300A has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The W7600 has 32 ray tracing cores. Neither card lists tensor cores. The MI300A lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, which is consistent with a compute-focused accelerator rather than a graphics-oriented product. The W7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The MI300A's FP16 performance is not recorded, while the W7600 lists FP16 at 39.98 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The MI300A has a die size more than five times larger than the W7600, and its transistor count is more than eleven times higher. The MI300A's transistor density is 150.4M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm² for the W7600.

Both chips come from TSMC, but the MI300A uses the newer 5 nm node. The W7600's 6 nm node is a step behind. The release dates differ by roughly four months: the MI300A was released on December 5, 2023, and the W7600 was released on August 2, 2023.

The MI300A has no display outputs, indicating it is not intended for direct video output. The W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The MI300A has no power connectors because it is an OAM module designed to draw power from a host system. The W7600 has a standard 1x 6-pin connector.

The Verdict

The data separates these two cards cleanly by purpose. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a compute accelerator with enormous FP32 throughput, 128 GB of HBM3 memory, and a 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth. It consumes 750 W, requires a 1,150 W PSU, has no display outputs, and has no recorded benchmark scores. It also has no mainstream graphics API support in the database. This is a card designed for server-scale compute tasks where memory capacity and bandwidth are the limiting factors.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is a conventional workstation GPU. It has verified benchmark results, a 93rd percentile ranking, a 130 W TDP, 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, 32 ray tracing cores, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its launch MSRP is 599 USD. It is a single-slot card that fits in a standard workstation and draws power from a 1x 6-pin connector.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision rests on the workload. The MI300A's specifications point to high-performance compute with massive memory capacity, but the database contains no benchmark scores to confirm its real-world behavior. The W7600 is the only one of the two with measured performance data, and that data shows a capable professional GPU that competes within a few percent of several NVIDIA workstation cards.

The recorded data does not support a direct performance comparison between these two accelerators. The MI300A wins on paper specifications in compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. The W7600 wins on verified benchmarks, power efficiency, display support, and software API compatibility. Each card serves a different segment of the market, and the database treats them accordingly.