AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a clean split between these two accelerators, though it is not a balanced one. The AMD Instinct MI300A holds advantages in texture processing and transistor density, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 dominates in raw compute throughput, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and pixel output.

The MI300A delivers a texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s against the B200's 1,083.4 GTexel/s. That is a 76.8% advantage for AMD in texture fill, which matters for workloads that stress texture sampling and filtered reads. The B200 counters with 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus the MI300A's 61.29 TFLOPS, a 13.1% lead for NVIDIA. The B200 also matches its FP16 output at 69.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the MI300A has no recorded FP16 figure, suggesting that mixed-precision throughput is not a documented strength for AMD here.

Memory is where the B200 pulls ahead decisively. It offers 180 GB of HBM3e against the MI300A's 128 GB of HBM3, a 40.6% capacity increase. Bandwidth favors NVIDIA even more strongly: 8.19 TB/s versus 5.32 TB/s, a 53.9% advantage. For large model residency and memory-bound kernels, the B200 has a clear operational edge.

The B200 also has a pixel rate of 43.92 GPixel/s, while the MI300A records 0 MPixel/s. That difference reflects the MI300A's lack of ROPs (0 recorded) versus the B200's 24 ROPs. Neither part is a graphics card, but the pixel output capability is present on the NVIDIA side and entirely absent on the AMD side.

In transistor count, the B200 uses 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, versus 153,000 million on a 1017 mm² die for the MI300A. The MI300A achieves a higher transistor density at 150.4M per mm² compared to 127.8M per mm² for the B200. Both are built on TSMC's 5 nm process.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz. The B200 has a base of only 120 MHz but boosts to 1830 MHz. The MI300A's sustained base clock is far higher, while the B200 relies on aggressive boosting under load.

Power envelopes are not equal. The MI300A carries a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The B200 draws 1000 W and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. The B200 consumes 33.3% more power, which scales with its higher compute and memory figures.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, part of AMD's Instinct (MIx) generation. The B200 uses the Blackwell architecture on the GB100 chip, part of NVIDIA's Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm node, but the similarities end there.

The MI300A packs 14592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The B200 has 18944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. NVIDIA also records 592 tensor cores, a figure the AMD side does not list. The MI300A has no tensor core count in the database, and its RT core fields are null for both parts, meaning neither is configured for ray tracing workloads.

Memory architecture differs in type and capacity. The MI300A uses HBM3 with 128 GB across an 8192-bit bus. The B200 uses HBM3e with 180 GB across the same 8192-bit bus width. The B200's memory clock runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective transfer, while the MI300A runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. This yields the bandwidth gap already noted.

Interconnect and physical form differ. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and an OAM Module slot width. The B200 uses PCIe 6.0 x16 and an SXM Module slot width. Neither part has display outputs, and both list N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan API support, confirming they are compute-only accelerators.

The B200 has a documented production status of Active, while the MI300A's status is not recorded. The MI300A's predecessor is the Radeon Instinct, and its release date is 2023-12-05. The B200's predecessor is Server Hopper, its successor is Server Rubin, and its release date is 2024-10-31. The B200 also has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD, which the MI300A does not list.

Power connectors are recorded as None for the MI300A, with no entry for the B200. The MI300A suggests a 1150 W PSU, while the B200 suggests 1400 W.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth from its HBM3e memory, compared to 5.32 TB/s for the AMD Instinct MI300A.

Q: How do the FP32 compute figures compare?

A: The B200 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS. The B200 leads by 13.1%.

Q: Does the MI300A have any advantage in texture processing?

A: Yes, the MI300A records a texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 1,083.4 GTexel/s for the B200, a 76.8% lead. This comes from its 912 TMUs versus the B200's 592 TMUs.

Q: What memory types do these parts use?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3. The B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W.

Q: Which part has a higher transistor density?

A: The MI300A has 150.4M transistors per mm² on a 1017 mm² die. The B200 has 127.8M transistors per mm² on a 1628 mm² die. The MI300A is denser despite having fewer total transistors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300A | NVIDIA B200 SXM6 |

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

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | GB100 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Blackwell |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Server Blackwell (Bxx) |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 208,000 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 1628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 127.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 120 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 1830 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 180 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | HBM3e |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 8192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 8.19 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 14592 | 18944 |

| TMUs | 912 | 592 |

| ROPs | 0 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | None recorded | 592 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 43.92 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,915.2 GTexel/s | 1,083.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 61.29 TFLOPS | 69.34 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | None recorded | 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 1000 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | SXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 1400 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2024-10-31 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Server Hopper |

| Successor | None recorded | Server Rubin |

| Production Status | None recorded | Active |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark scores for either part, and the wins counters show zero for both. The comparison must therefore rely on the specification-level performance indicators that are recorded.

The single largest gap in the data is texture rate. The MI300A's 1,915.2 GTexel/s outpaces the B200's 1,083.4 GTexel/s by 831.8 GTexel/s, a 76.8% margin. This is driven by the MI300A's 912 TMUs versus 592 TMUs, a 54.1% unit advantage. For workloads that are texture-sampling heavy, such as certain scientific visualization or image processing pipelines, the MI300A's lead is substantial.

Memory bandwidth is the B200's biggest win. At 8.19 TB/s, it exceeds the MI300A's 5.32 TB/s by 2.87 TB/s, a 53.9% advantage. The B200 also has 40.6% more memory capacity, 180 GB versus 128 GB. This combination means the B200 can hold larger models and feed them faster, which is critical for large-scale inference and training workloads where data movement dominates.

In raw FP32 compute, the B200 leads by 8.05 TFLOPS, from 69.34 to 61.29, a 13.1% margin. The B200 also records FP16 at the same 69.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the MI300A has no FP16 entry. The B200's 18944 shading units versus 14592 for the MI300A, a 29.8% unit advantage, supports this compute lead.

Pixel rate is one-sided. The B200 produces 43.92 GPixel/s, while the MI300A produces 0 MPixel/s. The MI300A has zero ROPs, so it cannot rasterize, while the B200's 24 ROPs enable some pixel output. Neither part is intended for graphics, but the B200 retains this capability while the MI300A does not.

Transistor density is the only metric where the MI300A wins beyond texture rate. Its 150.4M transistors per mm² beats the B200's 127.8M by 17.7%. Total transistor count, however, favors the B200 at 208,000 million versus 153,000 million, a 35.9% lead. The B200 also uses a much larger die, 1628 mm² versus 1017 mm², a 60.1% area increase.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The MI300A has a far higher base clock, 1000 MHz versus 120 MHz, an 8.3x difference. The B200's boost clock of 1830 MHz trails the MI300A's 2100 MHz by 12.9%. The B200's low base clock suggests it relies heavily on boost behavior, while the MI300A sustains a high floor.

Power consumption scales with capability. The B200's 1000 W TDP is 250 W higher than the MI300A's 750 W, a 33.3% increase. Its suggested PSU of 1400 W versus 1150 W reflects that additional draw.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct profiles. The AMD Instinct MI300A is the denser, more texture-capable accelerator with a higher sustained base clock and lower power draw. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is the larger, faster, and more memory-rich part with higher compute throughput and active production status.

For workloads that depend on texture throughput, the MI300A's 76.8% texture rate advantage is decisive. For workloads that depend on memory capacity, bandwidth, or FP32/FP16 compute, the B200 leads across the board. The B200's 180 GB of HBM3e at 8.19 TB/s is a major operational advantage for large models, and its 69.34 TFLOPS FP32 output is the higher compute ceiling.

The B200 also brings tensor cores, 592 of them, which the MI300A does not record. That points to the NVIDIA part being the stronger choice for mixed-precision and tensor-heavy workloads, especially given its 1:1 FP16 ratio. The MI300A's lack of FP16 data and absence of tensor cores in the database limits its appeal for AI training workloads.

The MI300A's release date of 2023-12-05 precedes the B200's 2024-10-31 by nearly eleven months. The B200 is the newer part with a documented successor, Server Rubin, and an active production status. The MI300A has no successor recorded and no production status in the database.

The choice comes down to workload shape. The MI300A suits texture-heavy compute tasks where its 912 TMUs and 1,915.2 GTexel/s deliver a clear edge, and its 750 W TDP means a simpler power infrastructure. The B200 suits memory-bound and compute-bound AI workloads where 180 GB, 8.19 TB/s, and 69.34 TFLOPS FP32 matter more than texture rate, and where the 1000 W TDP is acceptable. The B200's 34,999 USD launch MSRP is the only listed price in the comparison, but it reflects the larger die, more transistors, and higher memory class.