AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon RX 7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data for these two parts is unusual: there are no shared benchmark results recorded in the database. The AMD Instinct MI300A has an empty benchmark list, while the AMD Radeon RX 7400 has eight recorded scores. This means a direct per-test comparison is not possible from the available data. The analysis must instead rely on the recorded specifications and the RX 7400's standalone benchmark performance.

The RX 7400 shows a PassMark G3D score of 11,897, which places it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 2,467. In the database's nearest rival list, the RX 7400 sits slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon 8040S by 1.1%, ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 710M by 1.4%, ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 610 by 1.8%, and ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M by 1.9%. These deltas are small, indicating the RX 7400 is within a narrow performance band of these integrated and low-end discrete parts.

Looking at the RX 7400's individual benchmark scores, the strongest result is in PassMark DirectX 9 at 176, followed by DirectX 11 at 97. The DirectX 10 score is 59, and DirectX 12 is 44. The GPU compute score is 5,152, and the G2D score is 1,209. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1,103. These results show a part that handles older DirectX workloads better than newer ones, which is typical for a low-power entry-level GPU.

The MI300A has no benchmark scores in the database, and its percentile versus all GPUs is listed as 50, with an average benchmark score of 0. The absence of recorded measurements means the database cannot currently quantify its real-world performance. The specification data, however, indicates a vastly different class of hardware. The MI300A is an accelerator with 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the RX 7400 delivers 16.49 TFLOPS. In raw compute terms, the MI300A offers about 3.7 times the FP32 throughput, though this is a specification comparison, not a measured benchmark result.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different AMD architectures. The MI300A uses CDNA 3.0, built on the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The RX 7400 uses RDNA 3.0, built on the Navi 33 chip. The process nodes differ: the MI300A is on 5 nm at TSMC, while the RX 7400 is on 6 nm at TSMC. The transistor counts are drastically different. The MI300A has 153,000 million transistors, the RX 7400 has 13,300 million. The die sizes reflect this gap: the MI300A measures 1017 mm², the RX 7400 measures 204 mm². Transistor density is also higher on the MI300A at 150.4 million per mm² versus 65.2 million per mm² on the RX 7400.

The memory subsystems are in different leagues. The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s. The memory clock for the MI300A is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the RX 7400 runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The bus width difference is the dominant factor in the bandwidth gap.

Compute resources differ substantially. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs. The RX 7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI300A has no recorded ray tracing cores, while the RX 7400 has 28. The pixel rate tells the story: the MI300A is recorded at 0 MPixel/s, while the RX 7400 delivers 147.2 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s for the MI300A versus 257.6 GTexel/s for the RX 7400.

The clock speeds also differ. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz. The RX 7400 has a base of 1452 MHz, a game clock of 2200 MHz, and a boost of 2300 MHz. The RX 7400 runs at higher frequencies, but the MI300A's massive core count compensates.

Form factors and power delivery are completely different. The MI300A is an OAM module with no power connectors and a TDP of 750 W, requiring a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RX 7400 is a dual-slot card with a single 6-pin power connector, a TDP of 43 W, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The MI300A has no display outputs, while the RX 7400 has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The bus interfaces differ as well: the MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16, the RX 7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

API support is another divider. The MI300A lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The RX 7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This makes the RX 7400 a graphics-oriented part, while the MI300A is compute-focused with no graphics API support recorded.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the RX 7400 wins in any scenario that requires graphics output or rasterization. It has 64 ROPs, a pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s, and display outputs. It also supports modern graphics APIs. The MI300A has zero ROPs, no display outputs, and no graphics API support. For gaming, desktop rendering, or any visual output, the RX 7400 is the only viable option between the two.

The RX 7400 also wins on power efficiency in practical terms. Its TDP is 43 W versus 750 W for the MI300A. The suggested PSU for the RX 7400 is 200 W, while the MI300A asks for 1150 W. The RX 7400 runs at higher clock speeds, with a boost of 2300 MHz versus 2100 MHz for the MI300A.

The MI300A wins on raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 16.49 TFLOPS for the RX 7400. The texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 257.6 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. The MI300A has 128 GB of memory versus 8 GB. For compute workloads that fit within its architecture, the MI300A offers substantially more capacity and throughput.

The MI300A also has a higher transistor count and larger die, which suggests more parallel compute resources. Its shading units number 14,592 versus 1,792 for the RX 7400. The MI300A's 912 TMUs versus 112 on the RX 7400 further indicate its compute orientation.

The release dates show a generational gap. The MI300A was released on December 5, 2023. The RX 7400 was released on August 7, 2025. The MI300A's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, while the RX 7400's predecessor is Navi II, and its successor is Navi IV.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the RX 7400 delivers 16.49 TFLOPS. The MI300A offers approximately 3.7 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: Can the MI300A output video to a display?

A: No. The MI300A has no display outputs and no recorded support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The RX 7400, in contrast, has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: What is the memory size and type for each part?

A: The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How does the RX 7400 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The RX 7400 has an average benchmark score of 2,467, which is 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 8040S, 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 710M, 1.8% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 610, and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M.

Q: What are the power requirements for each part?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, with no power connectors as an OAM module. The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W, uses a single 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Q: Which architecture does each part use?

A: The MI300A uses CDNA 3.0 on the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The RX 7400 uses RDNA 3.0 on the Navi 33 chip. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but on different nodes: 5 nm for the MI300A and 6 nm for the RX 7400.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the specification fields where the two parts differ.

| Field | AMD Instinct MI300A | AMD Radeon RX 7400 |

|---|---|---|

| Series | null | Radeon RX 7000 series |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Navi 33 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Codename | null | Hotpink Bonefish |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Navi III (RX 7000) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1452 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2300 MHz |

| Game Clock | null | 2200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 14592 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 912 | 112 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | null | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 147.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,915.2 GTexel/s | 257.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 61.29 TFLOPS | 16.49 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | null | 32.97 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 43 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2025-08-07 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Navi II |

| Successor | null | Navi IV |

The two parts share the same manufacturer, AMD, and the same foundry, TSMC. All other recorded specification fields differ.

The Verdict

The data in the database draws a clear line between these two parts. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a compute accelerator with no graphics output, no graphics API support, and a 750 W TDP. Its specifications point toward server, datacenter, or high-performance compute workloads where massive memory capacity (128 GB HBM3) and high FP32 throughput (61.29 TFLOPS) matter more than display output or rasterization.

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 is a conventional graphics card. It has display outputs, modern API support, and a dual-slot form factor. Its TDP of 43 W and suggested PSU of 200 W make it suitable for low-power desktop systems. Its benchmark scores place it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 2,467 and small leads over its nearest rivals (1.1% to 1.9% ahead).

For a user building a system that needs to render graphics to a display, the RX 7400 is the only choice between these two, because the MI300A cannot output video. For a user running compute workloads that can use the MI300A's architecture, the specifications indicate far higher throughput and memory capacity. However, the database has no recorded benchmarks for the MI300A, so its measured performance cannot be verified from the data.

The RX 7400 has recorded benchmark scores and a percentile ranking, making its performance class clear. The MI300A has no such measurements. The decision between these parts should be driven by the workload: graphics output and low power consumption point to the RX 7400; raw compute capacity and memory bandwidth point to the MI300A, subject to the availability of software that supports its CDNA 3.0 architecture and its lack of display outputs.