AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no overlapping benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI300A and the AMD Radeon RX 7600. The MI300A has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed. The RX 7600, by contrast, has a full set of ten benchmark results across DirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan workloads.

The RX 7600 records an average benchmark score of 15171 across all tests. Its percentile ranking against all GPUs sits at 57, placing it above the midpoint of the database. The closest measured competitor is the AMD Radeon 680M with an average score of 15270, which is 0.7% ahead of the RX 7600. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199, a 0.2% advantage over the RX 7600. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X trails by 0.6% with a score of 15082, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti is 0.7% behind at 15063. These delta values are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the RX 7600 sits in a tightly clustered performance band.

Looking at individual RX 7600 benchmarks, the strongest result comes from Geekbench OpenCL at 88051 points. The PassMark G3D score of 16634 and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2310 further confirm consistent DirectX performance. Vulkan performance via Geekbench reaches 34401 points. Compute-oriented workloads show a PassMark GPU Compute score of 8790. Legacy DirectX tests record lower values: PassMark DirectX 9 at 226, DirectX 11 at 172, DirectX 10 at 84, and DirectX 12 at 58. The PassMark G2D result of 984 covers 2D graphics operations.

Because the MI300A has no entries in the benchmark database, no direct numerical comparison between the two accelerators is possible. The data shows one product with a complete measurement history and one without any recorded results. Any head-to-head analysis must therefore rest on the architectural and specification differences rather than on comparative benchmark scores.

The Verdict

The recorded data does not support a performance verdict between these two AMD products. The RX 7600 has measurable benchmark results and a percentile rank of 57, while the MI300A has a percentile rank of 50 and an average benchmark score of 0. The MI300A cannot be positioned relative to the RX 7600 on the basis of test scores, since none exist for it.

What the specifications do indicate is a fundamental difference in purpose. The MI300A is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no DirectX support, no OpenGL support, and no Vulkan support. The RX 7600 is a graphics card with 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A carries a 750 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 1150 W. The RX 7600 carries a 165 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 450 W. The MI300A uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors, while the RX 7600 uses a dual-slot design with a single 8-pin connector.

The launch MSRP for the RX 7600 is 269 USD. The MI300A has no launch MSRP recorded in the database. The RX 7600 remains in active production, whereas the MI300A has no production status listed. The RX 7600 has a defined predecessor (Navi II) and successor (Navi IV); the MI300A lists only a predecessor (Radeon Instinct) with no successor.

For users requiring graphics output, gaming APIs, or conventional display connectivity, the RX 7600 is the only option with the required feature set. For users requiring an accelerator with 128 GB of HBM3 memory, 8192-bit memory bus, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, the MI300A provides capabilities that the RX 7600 cannot approach. These are different product classes, and the data reflects that separation clearly.

FAQ

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

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

Q: What is the RX 7600's percentile ranking compared to all GPUs?

A: The RX 7600 sits at the 57th percentile, while the MI300A sits at the 50th percentile.

Q: Which product has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 7600 has a boost clock of 2655 MHz, while the MI300A has a boost clock of 2100 MHz.

Q: How much memory does each product have?

A: The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can the MI300A output video to a display?

A: No. The MI300A lists "No outputs" for display outputs, while the RX 7600 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The MI300A uses 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the RX 7600 uses 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The process nodes differ: the MI300A uses a 5 nm process, the RX 7600 uses a 6 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC. The MI300A die measures 1017 mm² with a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The RX 7600 die measures 204 mm² with a transistor density of 65.2M per mm².

Clock behavior diverges sharply. The MI300A has a 1000 MHz base clock and a 2100 MHz boost clock. The RX 7600 has a 1720 MHz base clock, a 2250 MHz game clock, and a 2655 MHz boost clock. Memory clocks also differ: the MI300A runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the RX 7600 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The MI300A offers 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7600 offers 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. That is a 16x difference in memory capacity and an 18.5x difference in bandwidth.

Compute unit counts follow the same pattern. The MI300A has 14592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The RX 7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI300A records a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s. The RX 7600 records a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput reaches 61.29 TFLOPS on the MI300A and 21.75 TFLOPS on the RX 7600. The RX 7600 also lists FP16 at 21.75 TFLOPS (1:1), while the MI300A has no FP16 figure recorded.

Power and physical specifications separate the two further. The MI300A carries a 750 W TDP with a suggested 1150 W power supply, occupies an OAM Module slot width, and has no power connectors. The RX 7600 carries a 165 W TDP with a suggested 450 W power supply, uses a dual-slot design, and requires one 8-pin connector. The RX 7600 measures 204 mm in length and 115 mm in height. The MI300A has no dimensions recorded.

The RX 7600 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The RX 7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A lists "N/A" for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation. The RX 7600 is built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, part of the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. These represent two distinct architectural lineages within AMD: CDNA targets data center compute, while RDNA targets graphics rendering.

The MI300A uses a 5 nm process with 153,000 million transistors. The RX 7600 uses a 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors. The MI300A's transistor density of 150.4M per mm² exceeds the RX 7600's 65.2M per mm², reflecting the newer process node and the larger die.

Memory architecture reflects the divergent design goals. HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus on the MI300A provides 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, which suits memory-bandwidth-intensive compute workloads. GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus on the RX 7600 provides 288.0 GB/s, which is adequate for graphics rendering but far below the MI300A's throughput.

The MI300A has no ROPs and no pixel rate, which indicates it is not designed to rasterize graphics. The RX 7600 has 64 ROPs and a 169.9 GPixel/s pixel rate, confirming its role as a rasterization-capable graphics card. The RX 7600 also includes 32 ray tracing cores; the MI300A has no RT core count listed.

API support follows the same split. The RX 7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A records "N/A" for all three, meaning it lacks the graphics API stack expected of a consumer GPU. The RX 7600 has display outputs; the MI300A has none.

The MI300A was released on 2023-12-05, with the Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. The RX 7600 was released on 2023-05-24, with Navi II as its predecessor and Navi IV as its successor. The RX 7600 has an active production status; the MI300A has none listed.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins in raw compute scale. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is 2.8x the RX 7600's 21.75 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s is 5.6x the RX 7600's 339.8 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s versus 288.0 GB/s gives the MI300A a decisive advantage in any workload that saturates memory. The 128 GB HBM3 capacity versus 8 GB GDDR6 means the MI300A can hold far larger datasets on-device. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides twice the lane count and a newer generation than the RX 7600's PCIe 4.0 x8.

The RX 7600 wins in every graphics-specific category. It has 64 ROPs and a 169.9 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the MI300A has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The RX 7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the MI300A supports none. The RX 7600 has display outputs, the MI300A has none. The RX 7600 includes 32 ray tracing cores; the MI300A has no RT core count recorded. The RX 7600's boost clock of 2655 MHz exceeds the MI300A's 2100 MHz, which benefits latency-sensitive workloads. The RX 7600 also has a lower TDP at 165 W versus 750 W, and a lower suggested power supply at 450 W versus 1150 W.

The database contains no overlapping benchmarks, so win counts cannot be assigned from test results. The winsA and winsB fields are both 0. The average benchmark score of 15171 for the RX 7600 and 0 for the MI300A reflects the absence of MI300A test data, not a performance comparison. The RX 7600's percentile rank of 57 versus the MI300A's 50 indicates that the RX 7600 sits higher in the overall distribution, but this comparison is compromised by the MI300A's lack of recorded scores.

For compute-heavy data center workloads with large memory footprints, the MI300A's specifications make it the appropriate choice. For graphics rendering, gaming, or any workload requiring display output or graphics APIs, the RX 7600 is the only viable option between the two.