AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the AMD Instinct MI300A and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile is complicated by the fact that the database contains recorded scores for only one of the two parts. The Instinct MI300A has no benchmark entries, while the RTX 4080 Mobile has a full suite of results spanning compute and graphics workloads. Consequently, the head-to-head analysis relies on the RTX 4080 Mobile’s recorded data and the MI300A’s theoretical specifications.

The RTX 4080 Mobile’s strongest measured result comes from Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 159,575 points. Its Vulkan result trails slightly at 145,807 points, indicating a modest performance gap between the two API paths in compute-heavy scenarios. In the Passmark suite, the DirectX 11 test yields a score of 244, while DirectX 9 reaches 286, DirectX 10 reaches 157, and DirectX 12 drops to 96. These figures show a clear regression as the API generation advances, with DirectX 12 delivering roughly 39% of the DirectX 9 score. The Passmark G3D score of 24,926 and the GPU compute score of 11,191 round out the synthetic picture.

The RTX 4080 Mobile sits at the 81st percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 38,135. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around this figure. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 averages 38,299, a 0.4% deficit relative to the RTX 4080 Mobile. The GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile averages 38,349, a 0.6% deficit. On the other side, the GeForce RTX 4070 averages 37,648, which is 1.3% ahead of the RTX 4080 Mobile, and the NVIDIA Tesla P4 averages 37,628, also 1.3% ahead. This tight grouping indicates that the RTX 4080 Mobile performs within a narrow band of its direct competitors, neither dominating nor trailing by a significant margin.

For the MI300A, no comparable benchmark scores exist in the database. Its theoretical peak FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS, however, far exceeds the RTX 4080 Mobile’s 24.72 TFLOPS. That raw compute advantage suggests the MI300A would lead in any pure compute benchmark, but without recorded measurements, the database cannot confirm that expectation. The percentile ranking for the MI300A sits at 50, reflecting the absence of tested performance rather than a measured competitive position.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Instinct MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD104 chip, also on a 5 nm TSMC process, but with 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The MI300A’s die is more than three times larger and packs more than four times the transistor count.

Memory architecture separates the two even further. The MI300A carries 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4080 Mobile has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI300A’s bandwidth advantage is roughly twelvefold, a direct consequence of the HBM3 stack and the exceptionally wide memory interface. The RTX 4080 Mobile’s memory clock runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate, while the MI300A’s memory operates at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective.

Compute resources differ by a comparable margin. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and no raster output units, which matches its role as a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs. The RTX 4080 Mobile has 7,424 shading units, 232 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The MI300A’s texture rate reaches 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 386.3 GTexel/s for the RTX 4080 Mobile. The RTX 4080 Mobile includes 58 ray tracing cores and 232 tensor cores, while the MI300A lists no RT or tensor core counts. The MI300A reports a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, consistent with its lack of rasterization hardware.

The clock profiles also diverge. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The RTX 4080 Mobile has a higher base of 1290 MHz but a lower boost of 1665 MHz. The MI300A’s higher boost clock, combined with its massive shading unit count, drives its FP32 throughput to 61.29 TFLOPS. The RTX 4080 Mobile reaches 24.72 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, the latter at a 1:1 ratio. The MI300A lists no FP16 figure in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4080 Mobile wins in any scenario requiring rasterization, ray tracing, or general-purpose graphics. Its 80 ROPs and 58 RT cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, and its 232 tensor cores support DLSS-style tensor operations. The Passmark DirectX 9 through DirectX 12 scores, while varying, all confirm functional graphics pipelines. The DirectX 12 score of 96, though the lowest in the group, still represents a working DirectX 12 implementation. The RTX 4080 Mobile also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it broad API coverage for gaming and content creation.

The MI300A wins in raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth, but only on paper. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 figure is 2.5 times the RTX 4080 Mobile’s 24.72 TFLOPS. Its 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth is over twelve times the RTX 4080 Mobile’s 432.0 GB/s. The MI300A’s 128 GB memory capacity is more than ten times larger, enabling workloads that simply cannot fit in the RTX 4080 Mobile’s 12 GB frame buffer. The MI300A’s texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s is roughly five times the RTX 4080 Mobile’s 386.3 GTexel/s.

The API support tells the story of divergent purposes. The MI300A lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, meaning it cannot run graphics workloads in the conventional sense. It has no display outputs and uses an OAM module slot with no power connectors, instead relying on a suggested 1150 W power supply. The RTX 4080 Mobile is an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs, indicating it is built for laptops where the display connection varies by chassis. The MI300A targets server racks and compute clusters; the RTX 4080 Mobile targets high-end gaming laptops.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every measurable specification. The MI300A uses 153,000 million transistors, while the RTX 4080 Mobile uses 35,800 million. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² versus 121.8M per mm². The MI300A’s base clock is 1000 MHz, its boost clock is 2100 MHz, and its memory runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. The RTX 4080 Mobile’s base clock is 1290 MHz, boost is 1665 MHz, and memory runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity is 128 GB of HBM3 versus 12 GB of GDDR6. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s. Shading units are 14,592 versus 7,424. TMUs are 912 versus 232. ROPs are 0 versus 80. The RTX 4080 Mobile has 58 RT cores and 232 tensor cores; the MI300A lists none. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 133.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 386.3 GTexel/s. FP32 is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 24.72 TFLOPS. The RTX 4080 Mobile’s FP16 matches its FP32 at 24.72 TFLOPS; the MI300A has no listed FP16.

Power consumption differs dramatically. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W, while the RTX 4080 Mobile is rated at 110 W. The MI300A’s suggested power supply is 1150 W; the RTX 4080 Mobile has no suggested PSU, consistent with its laptop integration. Bus interfaces are PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300A and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX 4080 Mobile. The MI300A has no display outputs; the RTX 4080 Mobile’s outputs are portable-device-dependent. Release dates are also distinct: the MI300A launched on December 5, 2023, while the RTX 4080 Mobile launched on January 2, 2023, roughly eleven months earlier.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A reaches 61.29 TFLOPS, compared to 24.72 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4080 Mobile uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the MI300A support graphics APIs?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the MI300A, and it has no display outputs. The RTX 4080 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 Mobile compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 4080 Mobile’s average benchmark score is 38,135. The GeForce MX570 scores 38,299 (0.4% lower), the RTX 5080 Mobile scores 38,349 (0.6% lower), the RTX 4070 scores 37,648 (1.3% higher), and the Tesla P4 scores 37,628 (1.3% higher).

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The MI300A contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The RTX 4080 Mobile contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: Only the RTX 4080 Mobile, which has 58 RT cores. The MI300A lists no ray tracing cores.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear split. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile is the only part with actual benchmark scores, and those scores place it in the 81st percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals sit within 1.3% of its average score, indicating strong competitive positioning within its segment. The Passmark and Geekbench results confirm functional graphics and compute capability across multiple APIs, and its 80 ROPs, 58 RT cores, and 232 tensor cores make it suitable for graphics workloads, ray tracing, and tensor-based operations. Its 110 W TDP and IGP form factor fit a laptop design.

The AMD Instinct MI300A has no benchmark scores in the database, so its performance cannot be compared on measured results. Its specifications, however, describe a fundamentally different product. The 750 W TDP, OAM module form factor, lack of display outputs, and absence of graphics API support indicate a compute-only accelerator. The 128 GB HBM3 memory, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 throughput target large-scale scientific computing and data-center workloads, not consumer graphics.

For a user selecting a GPU for graphics, gaming, or laptop deployment, the RTX 4080 Mobile is the only viable choice, and its benchmark data supports that selection. For a user requiring extreme memory capacity and raw compute throughput in a server environment, the MI300A’s specifications point in that direction, but the database lacks the measured scores to confirm its real-world performance. The data does not support a direct performance comparison, only a specification-based differentiation.