AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA L4 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison: the AMD Instinct MI300A has no benchmark entries, while the NVIDIA L4 has two recorded tests. The L4 achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 140,838 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 121,306. Its average benchmark score sits at 131,072, placing it in the 95th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The MI300A, by contrast, holds a 50th percentile rating with an average benchmark score of zero, indicating that no comparable workload measurements exist for it in the database.

The L4's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance tier. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti scores 131,938, which is 0.7% higher than the L4's average. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 135,218, a 3.1% advantage, and the NVIDIA A10M matches that same 3.1% margin at 135,230. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 135,396, 3.2% ahead. These deltas indicate the L4 operates within a tight performance band around these workstation and server cards, slightly below the top of that group but closely clustered.

Without any benchmark data for the MI300A, the database cannot assign it a win in any measured workload. The wins tally reflects this: zero wins for the MI300A, zero wins for the L4 in the head-to-head comparison section, although the L4 does have standalone scores. The use-case split therefore hinges on what the hardware specifications suggest rather than measured outcomes. The MI300A's configuration points toward massive parallel compute throughput, while the L4's feature set indicates a different balance of capabilities.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators diverge sharply at the architecture level. The AMD Instinct MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a chip design carrying the Aqua Vanjaram name. It is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA L4 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with 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 integrates 128 GB of HBM3 memory across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The L4 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 300.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI300A's memory subsystem is an order of magnitude larger in capacity and far wider in bus width, which suits data-intensive workloads. The L4's GDDR6 memory, while smaller, is paired with a much lower power envelope.

Shading resources differ substantially. The MI300A carries 14,592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units, with no ROPs recorded and no pixel rate. The L4 has 7,424 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 489.6 GTexel/s. The MI300A's texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s, roughly 3.9 times the L4's. The L4 includes 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores, while the MI300A lists no RT cores and no tensor cores in the database records.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The L4 operates at a 795 MHz base and 2040 MHz boost, with memory at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective). The MI300A reaches a higher boost frequency despite its larger die, while the L4's memory runs at more than double the effective data rate.

The MI300A reports 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the L4 reports 30.29 TFLOPS of FP32 and 30.29 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The MI300A lists no FP16 figure, so a direct comparison of half-precision throughput is not possible from the database. The power requirements represent the most dramatic difference: the MI300A carries a 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the L4 draws only 72 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI300A uses an OAM Module slot width, the L4 is single-slot. Both use no power connectors, though the MI300A's board form factor likely supplies power through the OAM interface.

The MI300A is a PCIe 5.0 x16 device, while the L4 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Neither card has display outputs. The API support differs completely: the MI300A lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the L4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The L4 has physical dimensions of 169 mm in length and 56 mm in height; the MI300A has no recorded dimensions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database is empty. No shared tests exist between the MI300A and the L4, so direct score comparisons cannot be made from measured data. The MI300A has no benchmark entries at all, and the L4 has only its two Geekbench results.

The L4's OpenCL score of 140,838 is 16.1% higher than its Vulkan score of 121,306. This gap suggests the L4's compute-oriented workloads perform differently depending on the API layer. Its average of 131,072 sits between these two values. Against its nearest rivals, the L4 trails the RTX 3090 Ti by 0.7%, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation by 3.1%, the A10M by 3.1%, and the Radeon PRO W6800 by 3.2%. These are narrow margins, placing the L4 within a few percentage points of several established workstation accelerators.

The MI300A's FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS is roughly double the L4's 30.29 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s far exceeds the L4's 489.6 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s dwarfs the L4's 300.1 GB/s. These specification gaps indicate that in raw compute and memory-bound tasks, the MI300A would likely dominate based on hardware resources alone. However, the absence of measured benchmark scores means the database cannot confirm this with recorded performance data. The L4 counters with a 95th percentile ranking versus the MI300A's 50th percentile, though that percentile likely reflects the absence of benchmark entries rather than measured inferiority.

The Verdict

The database presents a clear split. The NVIDIA L4 has verified benchmark scores, placing it in the 95th percentile with an average score of 131,072. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for environments where graphics APIs matter. Its 72 W TDP and single-slot form factor fit into standard server chassis with modest power budgets. The suggested PSU of 250 W reinforces its low-power profile.

The AMD Instinct MI300A offers far larger hardware resources: 128 GB of HBM3, 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, 14,592 shading units, and 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. Its 750 W TDP and OAM Module slot indicate a different deployment class, one aimed at dense compute nodes rather than general-purpose server slots. The lack of any benchmark data and the absence of graphics API support narrow its use case to compute-only acceleration.

From the data alone, the L4 is the only one of the two with demonstrated performance in the database. Its scores place it just below the RTX 3090 Ti and within 3.2% of several rival accelerators. The MI300A's specifications suggest a much higher ceiling for FP32 and memory bandwidth work, but no measurements confirm it. A buyer seeking verified performance with low power draw and graphics API support would choose the L4. A buyer prioritizing raw memory capacity and FP32 throughput, and willing to accept a 750 W power envelope, would look at the MI300A's specifications as the stronger theoretical option.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA L4 has recorded scores: 140,838 in Geekbench OpenCL and 121,306 in Geekbench Vulkan, with an average of 131,072. The AMD Instinct MI300A has no benchmark entries, so its average score is zero.

Q: How does the L4 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The L4 trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti by 0.7%, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation by 3.1%, the NVIDIA A10M by 3.1%, and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 by 3.2%.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The L4 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 300.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support graphics APIs?

A: No. The MI300A lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The L4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI300A has a 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The L4 has a 72 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card has more FP32 compute power?

A: The MI300A reports 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32. The L4 reports 30.29 TFLOPS of FP32 and 30.29 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300A | NVIDIA L4 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 795 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2040 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | 1563 MHz 12.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 300.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 14,592 | 7,424 |

| TMUs | 912 | 240 |

| ROPs | 0 | 80 |

| RT Cores | None recorded | 60 |

| Tensor Cores | None recorded | 240 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 163.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,915.2 GTexel/s | 489.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 61.29 TFLOPS | 30.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 30.29 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 72 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | No outputs |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Length | Not recorded | 169 mm (6.7 inches) |

| Height | Not recorded | 56 mm (2.2 inches) |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2023-03-20 |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Server Ampere |

| Successor | Not recorded | Server Hopper |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 95 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 131,072 |