AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE Comparison

The Verdict

The database separates these two AMD accelerators into entirely different compute classes. The Instinct MI300A is a data center oriented accelerator with a 50th percentile ranking across all GPUs, while the Radeon RX 7650 GRE is a client graphics card that sits at the 83rd percentile. The RX 7650 GRE is the only one of the two with a recorded benchmark score in the database, averaging 42,723 points across its tests. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, scores 43,223 points, which places the RX 7650 GRE just 1.2% behind. The MI300A records no benchmark entries and an average score of zero, so direct performance comparisons rely on architectural and specification analysis rather than measured results.

The RX 7650 GRE serves the graphics and gaming segment. It has display outputs, a dual-slot cooler, a 170 W TDP, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 2048 shading units position it for conventional rasterization workloads. The MI300A, by contrast, has no display outputs, uses an OAM module form factor, draws 750 W, and lists no graphics API support. It is built for compute density, not rendering. The data indicates that the MI300A is the choice for high throughput compute tasks where memory capacity and bandwidth dominate, while the RX 7650 GRE is the choice for graphics workloads, gaming, and any application that requires a standard PCIe add-in card with display connectivity. Users needing 128 GB of memory or a 5.32 TB/s memory pipeline have one option in this comparison, and it is not the Radeon.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural lineages within AMD. The Instinct MI300A uses CDNA 3.0, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, and carries the chip designation Aqua Vanjaram. The Radeon RX 7650 GRE uses RDNA 3.0, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, and uses the Navi 33 die with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The process node difference is significant: the MI300A packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The RX 7650 GRE contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The MI300A has roughly 11.5 times the transistor count of the Radeon on a die that is about five times larger.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The MI300A fields 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, reflecting its non-rendering role. Its pixel rate is listed as zero megapixels per second, while its texture rate reaches 1,915.2 GTexel/s. The RX 7650 GRE has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 172.5 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 345.0 GTexel/s. The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the RX 7650 GRE delivers 22.08 TFLOPS of FP32 and the same 22.08 TFLOPS for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The MI300A lists no FP16 figure in the database.

Memory architecture also separates the pair. The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, achieving 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7650 GRE uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 288.0 GB/s. Clock behavior reflects their different roles. The MI300A has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the RX 7650 GRE runs a 1720 MHz base, 2350 MHz game clock, and 2695 MHz boost. The Radeon's higher clocks suit latency sensitive graphics work, while the Instinct relies on massive parallelism and memory throughput. The MI300A specifies no graphics API support, while the RX 7650 GRE supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface; the RX 7650 GRE uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the MI300A and the RX 7650 GRE. The wins counter shows zero for both parts. This creates an analytical gap: the MI300A has no recorded test scores, while the RX 7650 GRE has two. The Radeon's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result is 2,336 points, and its Geekbench OpenCL result is 83,109 points. These produce an average benchmark score of 42,723 points. The MI300A sits at the 50th percentile across all GPUs, but with zero benchmark entries, the database assigns it an average score of zero. The percentile ranking for the MI300A appears to reflect its position in the broader GPU landscape, but no measured workload data exists to substantiate comparative wins.

Without head-to-head numbers, the closest comparison comes from the RX 7650 GRE's nearest rivals. The Radeon trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER by 1.2%, with the NVIDIA card scoring 43,223 points. It also trails the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB by 1.2% (43,262 points), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile by 1.3% (43,268 points), and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 by 1.3% (43,301 points). These deltas are small, indicating the RX 7650 GRE sits in a tightly contested performance band. The MI300A's compute specifications, such as 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth, suggest it would dominate in throughput oriented tasks, but the database records no benchmark to confirm that expectation.

The texture rate differential offers a partial proxy for compute throughput. The MI300A's 1,915.2 GTexel/s is about 5.6 times the RX 7650 GRE's 345.0 GTexel/s. FP32 output shows a similar gap: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 22.08 TFLOPS, a factor of roughly 2.8. Memory bandwidth differs by a factor of about 18.5, with the MI300A at 5.32 TB/s against the Radeon's 288.0 GB/s. These are specification comparisons, not measured benchmark results, but they indicate the scale of the architectural gulf between the two.

Specification Differences

The MI300A and RX 7650 GRE differ across nearly every recorded specification. The MI300A uses a 5 nm process, the RX 7650 GRE uses 6 nm. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 13,300 million. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 204 mm². Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm². Base clocks are 1000 MHz versus 1720 MHz; boost clocks are 2100 MHz versus 2695 MHz. The RX 7650 GRE also lists a game clock of 2350 MHz, which the MI300A does not have. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the MI300A and 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the Radeon.

Memory capacity is 128 GB of HBM3 versus 8 GB of GDDR6. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. Shading units are 14,592 versus 2,048. TMUs are 912 versus 128. ROPs are zero versus 64. The RX 7650 GRE has 32 ray tracing cores; the MI300A lists none. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 172.5 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 345.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 22.08 TFLOPS. The MI300A lists no FP16 figure; the RX 7650 GRE lists 22.08 TFLOPS at 1:1.

TDP is 750 W versus 170 W. The MI300A uses an OAM Module slot width; the RX 7650 GRE is dual-slot. Power connectors are none for the MI300A versus 1x 8-pin for the Radeon. Suggested PSU is 1150 W versus 450 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are none versus 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI300A has no graphics API support; the RX 7650 GRE supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A has no listed dimensions; the RX 7650 GRE measures 204 mm in length and 115 mm in height. Release dates are December 5, 2023 for the MI300A and February 6, 2025 for the RX 7650 GRE. The RX 7650 GRE is marked as Active in production status; the MI300A has no production status listed. The RX 7650 GRE has a launch MSRP of 279 USD. The MI300A has no launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units, the MI300A or the RX 7650 GRE?

A: The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, while the RX 7650 GRE has 2,048. The MI300A also has 912 TMUs compared to 128, but it has no ROPs, whereas the RX 7650 GRE has 64.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The MI300A delivers 5.32 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM3 interface with 128 GB capacity. The RX 7650 GRE delivers 288.0 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 interface with 8 GB capacity. The MI300A's bandwidth is roughly 18.5 times higher.

Q: What is the performance ranking of the RX 7650 GRE relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7650 GRE has a 83rd percentile ranking across all GPUs and an average benchmark score of 42,723. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER by 1.2%, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB by 1.2%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile by 1.3%, and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 by 1.3%.

Q: Does the MI300A support display outputs?

A: No. The MI300A lists no display outputs, while the RX 7650 GRE includes 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI300A also lists no graphics API support, while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI300A has a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, with no power connectors listed due to its OAM Module form factor. The RX 7650 GRE has a 170 W TDP, a suggested PSU of 450 W, and uses 1x 8-pin power connector.

Q: Which architecture and process node does each GPU use?

A: The MI300A uses CDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The RX 7650 GRE uses RDNA 3.0 on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with the Navi 33 chip. The MI300A has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the RX 7650 GRE has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die.