AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs for the AMD Instinct MI300A versus the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER. The database lists no common tests, and the MI300A has an average benchmark score of zero with no entries in its benchmark array. The RTX 5080 SUPER has a single recorded benchmark result: 3,075 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. That score places it at the 19th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning 81% of recorded graphics cards outperform it in that specific test.

For context, the RTX 5080 SUPER sits within a tight cluster of rivals in the database. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 posts an average score of 3,163, which is 2.8% higher than the RTX 5080 SUPER's result. The Intel Arc Pro B60 scores 3,182, a 3.4% lead. On the lower side, the NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2,983, trailing by 3.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 2,967, trailing by 3.6%. These deltas are small, all within a 7% band, which indicates that the RTX 5080 SUPER's Steel Nomad performance is comparable to a set of much older or lower-tier products, a curious result for a flagship-class Blackwell part.

The MI300A cannot be compared numerically in any benchmark because the database records zero scores for it. Its percentile versus all GPUs is listed at 50, but with no actual benchmark data, this metric appears to be a default or provisional value rather than a measured outcome. The absence of wins for either side (winsA: 0, winsB: 0) confirms that no head-to-head tests exist in the database. Any performance comparison between these two accelerators must rely on architectural and specification analysis rather than direct measured outcomes.

FAQ

Q: What is the sole benchmark score recorded for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER?

A: The database lists one result: 3,075 points in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This is the only benchmark entry for the card, and it also serves as its average benchmark score.

Q: How does the RTX 5080 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: It trails the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 by 2.8% (3,163 vs. 3,075) and the Intel Arc Pro B60 by 3.4% (3,182 vs. 3,075). It leads the NVIDIA GeForce 820A by 3.1% (2,983 vs. 3,075) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M by 3.6% (2,967 vs. 3,075).

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

A: No. The MI300A has an empty benchmark array, an average score of zero, and no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile of 50 is not supported by any measured test result.

Q: What memory configurations do the two products use?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5080 SUPER uses 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 1.02 TB/s.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for each chip?

A: The MI300A's chip, Aqua Vanjaram, contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4 million transistors per mm². The RTX 5080 SUPER's GB203 chip contains 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, for a density of 120.6 million per mm².

Q: What is the launch MSRP for the RTX 5080 SUPER?

A: The launch MSRP is 999 USD. The MI300A has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

Without head-to-head benchmark results, wins must be inferred from recorded specifications and the single RTX 5080 SUPER test score. The MI300A dominates in raw compute and memory throughput. Its FP32 throughput is 61.29 TFLOPS, compared to the RTX 5080 SUPER's 56.28 TFLOPS, a lead of roughly 9%. Texture rate favors the MI300A heavily: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 879.3 GTexel/s, more than double. Memory bandwidth is similarly lopsided: 5.32 TB/s versus 1.02 TB/s, a 5.2x advantage. The MI300A also carries 128 GB of memory versus 24 GB, and a 8192-bit bus versus 256-bit. These figures point to workloads that saturate memory or texture units, such as large-scale data processing, scientific simulation, or dense compute tasks.

The RTX 5080 SUPER wins in areas the MI300A lacks entirely. It has 112 ROPs and a pixel rate of 293.1 GPixel/s, while the MI300A records 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The NVIDIA part includes 84 ray tracing cores and 336 tensor cores, while the MI300A lists neither as non-null values. Display outputs exist only on the RTX 5080 SUPER: 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The MI300A has no display outputs. The RTX 5080 SUPER also supports a full API stack: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI300A lists N/A for all three. This positions the RTX 5080 SUPER for graphics rendering, ray tracing, and consumer-facing workloads, while the MI300A is a compute-only accelerator.

Clock speeds favor the RTX 5080 SUPER in frequency terms. Its base clock is 2295 MHz and boost is 2617 MHz, versus 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost for the MI300A. The NVIDIA card's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 32 Gbps effective, while the MI300A's memory runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. Yet the MI300A's wider bus and HBM3 memory compensate, yielding far higher total bandwidth. Power draw differs substantially: the RTX 5080 SUPER is rated at 415 W TDP with a single 16-pin connector, while the MI300A is rated at 750 W TDP with no power connectors listed and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RTX 5080 SUPER is a dual-slot card with dimensions of 304 mm by 137 mm by 40 mm; the MI300A is an OAM Module with no dimensions recorded.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators diverge across nearly every specification category. The MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip under the CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the RTX 5080 SUPER uses the GB203 chip under Blackwell 2.0. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but transistor counts differ by a factor of 3.4: 153,000 million versus 45,600 million. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 378 mm², and transistor density is 150.4M per mm² versus 120.6M per mm².

Shader configuration differs significantly. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The MI300A lists no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, while the RTX 5080 SUPER includes 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI300A versus 293.1 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part. Texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 879.3 GTexel/s.

Memory specs are a major differentiator. The MI300A offers 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5080 SUPER offers 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus with 1.02 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card's memory clock is 2000 MHz (32 Gbps effective), while the MI300A's is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). FP32 compute is 61.29 TFLOPS for the MI300A and 56.28 TFLOPS for the RTX 5080 SUPER. The RTX 5080 SUPER also records FP16 at 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1), while the MI300A lists no FP16 figure.

Physical and power characteristics differ as well. The MI300A is an OAM Module with no power connectors and a 750 W TDP, suggesting a 1150 W PSU. The RTX 5080 SUPER is a dual-slot card with a 1x 16-pin connector, a 415 W TDP, and no suggested PSU. The MI300A has no display outputs; the RTX 5080 SUPER has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The MI300A has no API support listed, while the RTX 5080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are December 5, 2023 for the MI300A and December 31, 2025 for the RTX 5080 SUPER. The MI300A's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the RTX 5080 SUPER lists no predecessor.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between CDNA 3.0 and Blackwell 2.0 is substantial. CDNA 3.0 is AMD's compute-focused design, optimized for matrix math and high-bandwidth memory access, with no graphics pipeline. The MI300A's zero ROPs, zero pixel rate, and N/A API entries confirm this: it is not designed to rasterize or render frames. Its 14,592 shading units and 912 TMUs feed compute workloads rather than graphics output. The 8192-bit memory bus and 128 GB HBM3 pool are built for large datasets that exceed the memory capacity of consumer GPUs.

Blackwell 2.0, by contrast, is a full graphics and compute architecture. The RTX 5080 SUPER includes dedicated ray tracing hardware (84 RT cores) and tensor cores (336) for AI acceleration and DLSS-style workloads. Its 112 ROPs and 293.1 GPixel/s pixel rate enable traditional rendering. The 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio (both 56.28 TFLOPS) suggests a unified shader design where FP16 and FP32 throughput match, whereas the MI300A lists no FP16 data, leaving its half-precision capability unspecified in the database.

Both chips share a 5 nm TSMC process and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, but the MI300A's transistor density is 150.4M per mm² versus 120.6M for the GB203. This density gap, combined with the MI300A's much larger die, indicates a design that prioritizes raw compute and memory parallelism over power efficiency or graphics features. The RTX 5080 SUPER's smaller die and higher clock speeds (2295 MHz base, 2617 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz base, 2100 MHz boost) point to a frequency-driven design that extracts performance from fewer transistors. The MI300A's 750 W TDP versus the RTX 5080 SUPER's 415 W TDP reflects this divergence: the AMD part spends power on massive memory bandwidth and compute throughput, while the NVIDIA part allocates power across a balanced mix of graphics, tensor, and RT units.

The absence of display outputs and APIs on the MI300A means it cannot function as a standalone graphics card. The RTX 5080 SUPER's HDMI 2.1b and DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, along with DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support, make it a consumer-accessible product. These architectural choices explain the division of labor: the MI300A targets server and datacenter compute, the RTX 5080 SUPER targets workstations and gaming systems that also need rendering capabilities.

The Verdict

The database provides no measured head-to-head comparison, so the verdict rests on the recorded specifications and the single RTX 5080 SUPER benchmark. For workloads that demand maximum memory bandwidth, the MI300A is the clear choice. Its 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, 128 GB capacity, and 8192-bit bus exceed the RTX 5080 SUPER's 1.02 TB/s and 24 GB by wide margins. Its FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS also leads the RTX 5080 SUPER's 56.28 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s is more than double the NVIDIA card's 879.3 GTexel/s. These metrics suit scientific computing, large-scale data analytics, and AI training workloads where memory capacity and bandwidth are the limiting factors.

The RTX 5080 SUPER wins for graphics-oriented tasks. It is the only one of the two with ROPs, pixel rate, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, display outputs, and a full API stack. Its 293.1 GPixel/s pixel rate and 84 RT cores enable real-time rendering and ray-traced visuals, while the MI300A offers none of these capabilities. The RTX 5080 SUPER's 3,075 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, while modest relative to its nearest rivals (trailing the Quadro P1000 by 2.8% and the Arc Pro B60 by 3.4%), is the only measured performance data in the database, and it demonstrates functional graphics capability that the MI300A cannot provide.

The choice between these two products depends on whether the workload involves rendering or pure compute. The MI300A's zero ROPs, zero pixel rate, and lack of display outputs make it unsuitable for any task requiring visual output. The RTX 5080 SUPER's smaller memory and lower bandwidth make it less suited to massive dataset workloads, despite its higher clock speeds and superior frequency characteristics. The MI300A also requires a 1150 W suggested PSU and has no power connectors, indicating a server-style installation, while the RTX 5080 SUPER uses a standard 16-pin connector in a dual-slot form factor. Users with compute-heavy, memory-bound workloads should select the MI300A; users with rendering, ray tracing, or general graphics needs should select the RTX 5080 SUPER. The data supports no other conclusion.