AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI300A and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB. The Instinct MI300A has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of 0, and sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. The RTX 3050 6 GB, by contrast, has a recorded average benchmark score of 2,329 and sits at the 15th percentile.

The RTX 3050 6 GB delivers measurable results across several tests. Its highest single score is 10,738 in Passmark G3D, followed by 5,192 in Passmark GPU Compute. DirectX tests show a range from 53 in Passmark DirectX 12 to 124 in Passmark DirectX 9. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test returns 1,515. The 2D score sits at 882.

Because the MI300A has no benchmark entries, the comparison is asymmetrical. The data confirms that the MI300A occupies a different segment entirely, one where the database records no gaming or graphics workloads. The RTX 3050 6 GB is positioned among rivals such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M, which scores 2,335 and trails by 0.3%, and the NVIDIA Quadro P620, which scores 2,339 and trails by 0.4%. The Intel HD Graphics 510 scores 2,305, which is 1% behind the RTX 3050 6 GB, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M scores 2,363, which is 1.4% ahead.

The data shows the RTX 3050 6 GB outperforms three of its four nearest rivals, with only the GT 550M ahead. The margins are narrow, all within 1.4%. This places the RTX 3050 6 GB in a tight cluster of lower-end GPUs. The MI300A, with no scores and no rivals listed, cannot be ranked against any of these parts.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 6 GB wins in every measurable graphics workload recorded in the database. It produces 47.04 GPixel/s of pixel rate, 105.8 GTexel/s of texture rate, and 6.774 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. It also delivers 6.774 TFLOPS of FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio. These figures support its Passmark G3D score of 10,738 and its DirectX 9 score of 124, which is its strongest legacy API result.

The MI300A wins in raw compute capacity, though no benchmark verifies it. The data lists 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32, 1,915.2 GTexel/s of texture rate, and 0 MPixel/s of pixel rate. The zero pixel rate indicates the part is not designed for rasterized output, as it has no display outputs. Its strengths lie in memory and throughput, not graphics rendering.

The recorded data splits cleanly: the RTX 3050 6 GB is a graphics card with API support and display outputs, while the MI300A is an accelerator with no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The RTX 3050 6 GB supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A lists N/A for all three APIs.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The RTX 3050 6 GB uses the Ampere architecture on the GA107 chip, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5 million per mm².

The transistor disparity is enormous: the MI300A holds roughly 17.6 times more transistors. The die area is over five times larger. Density also favors the MI300A, with over three times the transistors per square millimeter.

The MI300A uses HBM3 memory totaling 128 GB across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3050 6 GB uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 168.0 GB/s. The memory bandwidth difference is a factor of roughly 31.7, and the capacity difference is over 21 times.

Shading unit counts differ sharply. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units and 912 TMUs, with no ROPs. The RTX 3050 6 GB has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI300A has no RT cores and no tensor cores listed, while the RTX 3050 6 GB includes 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI300A runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The RTX 3050 6 GB runs at 1042 MHz base and 1470 MHz boost. The MI300A has a higher boost clock, but the RTX 3050 6 GB starts from a higher base.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every measurable specification. The MI300A uses a 5 nm TSMC process; the RTX 3050 6 GB uses 8 nm Samsung. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 8,700 million. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density is 150.4 million per mm² versus 43.5 million per mm².

Memory configuration diverges completely. The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3050 6 GB uses 6 GB of GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 168.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources differ by scale. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The RTX 3050 6 GB has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI300A has no RT or tensor cores listed; the RTX 3050 6 GB has 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores.

Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s on the MI300A versus 47.04 GPixel/s on the RTX 3050 6 GB. Texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 105.8 GTexel/s. FP32 is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 6.774 TFLOPS. FP16 is not listed for the MI300A, while the RTX 3050 6 GB lists 6.774 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Power and physical specs differ as well. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RTX 3050 6 GB has a TDP of 70 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI300A is an OAM module with no power connectors listed; the RTX 3050 6 GB is a dual-slot card with no power connectors listed. The MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the RTX 3050 6 GB uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Display support is absent on the MI300A, which lists no outputs. The RTX 3050 6 GB provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX 3050 6 GB has dimensions of 242 mm length and 112 mm height; the MI300A lists no dimensions.

API support is another clear divider. The MI300A lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The RTX 3050 6 GB supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release timing also differs. The MI300A released on 2023-12-05, while the RTX 3050 6 GB released on 2024-02-01. The RTX 3050 6 GB is marked as end-of-life production status, with the GeForce 40 listed as its successor. The MI300A has no production status listed and no successor.

The launch MSRP of the RTX 3050 6 GB is 179 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A lists 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32, versus 6.774 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB, a difference of roughly 9 times.

Q: Does the MI300A support DirectX?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the MI300A. The RTX 3050 6 GB supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3050 6 GB uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 168.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How does the RTX 3050 6 GB compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 2,329 is 0.3% below the GT 640M (2,335), 0.4% below the Quadro P620 (2,339), 1% above the Intel HD Graphics 510 (2,305), and 1.4% below the GT 550M (2,363).

Q: Does the MI300A have any display outputs?

A: No. The MI300A lists no outputs, and its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s. The RTX 3050 6 GB has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What is the TDP of each part?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RTX 3050 6 GB has a TDP of 70 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The Verdict

The recorded data describes two products with no overlap in purpose. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a compute accelerator. It uses CDNA 3.0, HBM3 memory, a 5 nm process, and a 750 W power envelope. It has no display outputs, no consumer API support, and no benchmark scores in the database. Its 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 and 5.32 TB/s of memory bandwidth place it in a class meant for large-scale compute workloads.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB is a consumer graphics card. It has display outputs, full API support, and a 70 W power envelope. Its benchmark scores, led by 10,738 in Passmark G3D and 5,192 in GPU Compute, place it at the 15th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all within 1.4%, confirming its position near the lower end of the performance range.

The data shows the MI300A wins decisively in raw throughput metrics: FP32, texture rate, memory bandwidth, transistor count, and die size. The RTX 3050 6 GB wins in every graphics-oriented metric: pixel rate, ROP count, RT cores, tensor cores, API support, and display connectivity.

The choice depends on the workload, and the data makes that workload direction explicit. The MI300A is for compute tasks that require massive memory capacity and bandwidth, with no need for graphics output. The RTX 3050 6 GB is for rendering, DirectX, and Vulkan workloads, with output support and legacy API compatibility. The MI300A has no recorded benchmark scores, so its performance in real applications cannot be verified from the database. The RTX 3050 6 GB has verifiable results across multiple tests.

The percentile standings reinforce the separation. The MI300A sits at the 50th percentile with a 0 average score, a placeholder position rather than a measured ranking. The RTX 3050 6 GB sits at the 15th percentile with a 2,329 average, placing it among low-tier graphics parts. The MI300A cannot be compared to the RTX 3050 6 GB on graphics grounds, and the RTX 3050 6 GB cannot be compared to the MI300A on compute grounds. The database records no head-to-head benchmarks, and the architecture differences explain why: the parts are built for different tasks, with different memory systems, different process nodes, and different power budgets.