AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two accelerators cannot be compared directly through shared benchmark scores, as the AMD Instinct MI300A has no benchmark entries in the database, while the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT has a full set of ten recorded tests. The database shows zero wins for each side in head-to-head benchmarks, reflecting the absence of overlapping test data. This is not a deficiency in either product, but a structural gap in the measurement set: the MI300A is a compute-optimized accelerator with no display outputs and no graphics API support, while the RX 7800 XT is a consumer graphics card with full DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support. Consequently, the RX 7800 XT is the only one of the two with quantifiable benchmark results.

For the RX 7800 XT, the recorded scores show a clear pattern. The highest single score is in Geekbench Vulkan at 54,228, which indicates strong general-purpose compute performance through the Vulkan API. The OpenCL score of 18,290 is substantially lower, at roughly one-third of the Vulkan result, which suggests that the card's compute throughput is highly dependent on the API and driver path used. In PassMark tests, the G3D score of 24,176 stands above the GPU Compute score of 13,473, indicating that rasterization and graphics workloads outperform raw compute tasks on this architecture. The DirectX 12 score of 93 and DirectX 11 score of 249 are both low in absolute terms, while DirectX 9 scores 304 and DirectX 10 scores 121, which indicates legacy API performance is not a strength for this generation.

The average benchmark score for the RX 7800 XT is 11,627 across all recorded tests. This places it at the 51st percentile of all GPUs in the database, a narrow margin above the MI300A's 50th percentile, which is based on no recorded benchmarks and an average score of zero. The nearest rivals for the RX 7800 XT provide context for this percentile. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 scores 11,680, which is 0.5% higher than the RX 7800 XT, making the two statistically equivalent in average score. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 11,528, which is 0.9% lower, and the NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11,479, which is 1.3% lower. The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT scores 11,842, which is 1.8% higher. These deltas are all within roughly two percentage points, indicating that the RX 7800 XT's average benchmark score sits in a tightly packed group of mid-range performers, despite the card having a much higher peak score in Vulkan.

The MI300A, by contrast, has no benchmark scores, no nearest rivals, and an average score of zero. Its percentile of 50 is a placeholder value from the database rather than a measured result. The data cannot support any claim of performance superiority for the MI300A, nor can it support a direct comparison of the two products' speed in any specific workload. The only meaningful statements come from the RX 7800 XT's own scores and its rival deltas.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT, and how does it compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7800 XT has an average benchmark score of 11,627 across ten recorded tests. This is 0.5% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680), 0.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11,528), 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (11,479), and 1.8% lower than the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842).

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

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the MI300A, and its average benchmark score is zero. Its percentile of 50 is a default value, not derived from any measurement.

Q: What is the highest recorded benchmark score for the RX 7800 XT?

A: The highest score is 54,228 in Geekbench Vulkan. This is more than double the next highest score in the set, which is the PassMark G3D score of 24,176.

Q: How do the RX 7800 XT's graphics API scores compare across DirectX versions?

A: The PassMark scores show DirectX 9 at 304, DirectX 11 at 249, DirectX 10 at 121, and DirectX 12 at 93. The DirectX 9 score is the highest of the four, while the DirectX 12 score is the lowest, indicating that newer API workloads do not scale proportionally in this test suite.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each product relative to all GPUs in the database?

A: The RX 7800 XT ranks at the 51st percentile, while the MI300A ranks at the 50th percentile. The MI300A's percentile is based on no data, so the one-point difference carries no analytical weight.

Q: Which product has support for graphics APIs?

A: The RX 7800 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A has no graphics API support, with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all listed as N/A, and it has no display outputs.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear decision for one type of user and offers no evidence for the other. The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is the only product of the two with any benchmark results, so any workload that can be measured by the database's test suite must favor the RX 7800 XT by default. Its average score of 11,627 and 51st percentile ranking, while modest, are real numbers derived from ten tests. The MI300A has no scores, no rivals, and no measured performance, so it cannot be recommended for any workload on the basis of this data.

The MI300A's specifications, however, point to a different purpose. It uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, compared to the RX 7800 XT's 16 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 624.1 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units versus 3,840, and its FP32 throughput is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 37.32 TFLOPS. These numbers indicate a compute-oriented design, but without benchmark scores, the database cannot confirm how that specification translates into real-world performance. The RX 7800 XT, with its recorded scores and full graphics API support, is the only product for which the data shows measurable capability.

For users who need graphics output, the choice is unambiguous: the RX 7800 XT has display outputs and API support, while the MI300A has none. For users who need raw compute, the MI300A's specifications suggest it is designed for that role, but the absence of recorded benchmarks means the data cannot verify any performance claim. The verdict from the database is therefore conditional: the RX 7800 XT is the only product with demonstrated performance, and the MI300A is an unmeasured specification sheet.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every recorded specification category. The MI300A uses a 5 nm process node at TSMC, and the RX 7800 XT also uses a 5 nm node at TSMC, so the process is identical. The transistor counts diverge sharply: the MI300A has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the RX 7800 XT has 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die. The transistor density follows, at 150.4M per mm² for the MI300A versus 81.2M per mm² for the RX 7800 XT.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The MI300A runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the RX 7800 XT runs at a 1295 MHz base and 2430 MHz boost, with a game clock of 2124 MHz. Memory clocks are also distinct: the MI300A uses 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the RX 7800 XT uses 2438 MHz with 19.5 Gbps effective. Memory capacity and type are entirely different, with the MI300A at 128 GB HBM3 and the RX 7800 XT at 16 GB GDDR6. Bus widths are 8192 bit versus 256 bit, and bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 624.1 GB/s.

The compute units scale accordingly. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s. The RX 7800 XT has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 233.3 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 583.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 61.29 TFLOPS for the MI300A and 37.32 TFLOPS for the RX 7800 XT. The RX 7800 XT also has a recorded FP16 rate of 37.32 TFLOPS (1:1), while the MI300A has no FP16 entry.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the RX 7800 XT has a TDP of 263 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W. The MI300A is an OAM module with no power connectors and no display outputs, while the RX 7800 XT is a dual-slot card with 2x 8-pin connectors and outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300A and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 7800 XT. The RX 7800 XT has physical dimensions of 267 mm length, 111 mm height, and 50 mm width; the MI300A has no recorded dimensions. The RX 7800 XT has a launch MSRP of 499 USD, while the MI300A has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different architectural families within AMD. The MI300A is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, with the chip codename Aqua Vanjaram, and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The RX 7800 XT is built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the chip codename Navi 32, and belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. Both use a 5 nm TSMC process, but the design philosophies diverge in ways that the recorded data makes explicit.

The MI300A's CDNA 3.0 architecture is compute-focused, with no ROPs and no pixel output, which explains the 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. It has no display outputs and no graphics API support, meaning it is not intended for any rendering workload that requires a display. Its memory subsystem of 128 GB HBM3 on a 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is designed for large data sets and high-bandwidth access, which is typical of accelerator-class hardware. The RX 7800 XT's RDNA 3.0 architecture includes 96 ROPs, a 233.3 GPixel/s pixel rate, and full graphics API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth is oriented toward frame rendering and consumer workloads.

The MI300A has no listed RT cores or tensor cores, while the RX 7800 XT has 60 RT cores. The MI300A's shading unit count of 14,592 is nearly four times the RX 7800 XT's 3,840, and its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s is more than three times the RX 7800 XT's 583.2 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput difference is smaller in relative terms, with the MI300A at 61.29 TFLOPS and the RX 7800 XT at 37.32 TFLOPS, a ratio of about 1.64 to 1. The RX 7800 XT records an FP16 rate equal to its FP32 rate at 37.32 TFLOPS (1:1), while the MI300A has no FP16 entry in the database.

The production status also differs: the RX 7800 XT is listed as active, while the MI300A has no production status recorded. The RX 7800 XT has a predecessor of Navi II and a successor of Navi IV, while the MI300A has a predecessor of Radeon Instinct and no successor. The release dates are close, with the RX 7800 XT released on 2023-09-05 and the MI300A on 2023-12-05. The architecture differences, therefore, are not just in the names but in the fundamental capabilities: one is a rendering device with measured performance, the other is a compute accelerator with no recorded measurements.