AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI300A versus the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. The winsA and winsB fields both register zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. Consequently, any direct performance comparison must be derived from the raw specification data rather than measured application results.

The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM provides 28.83 TFLOPS. This places the AMD part at roughly 2.13 times the raw single-precision throughput of the NVIDIA chip. The texture rate follows a similar pattern, with the MI300A reaching 1,915.2 GTexel/s against the N1X's 900.9 GTexel/s, a margin of about 2.13x as well. The pixel rate, however, tells a different story: the MI300A lists 0 MPixel/s while the N1X 48SM outputs 112.6 GPixel/s. That discrepancy reflects the fundamental design split between a dedicated compute accelerator with no ROPs and an integrated graphics processor with 48 ROPs.

Memory bandwidth presents the starkest contrast. The MI300A exposes 5.32 TB/s across an 8192-bit HBM3 interface, whereas the N1X 48SM must rely on 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit LPDDR5X bus. The bandwidth ratio stands at approximately 19.5 to 1 in favor of the AMD accelerator. Both parts carry 128 GB of memory, but the type and bus width could not be more different: HBM3 stacked memory versus LPDDR5X system-level memory.

Clock behavior also diverges. The MI300A runs a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The N1X 48SM starts at 741 MHz base and reaches 2346 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part has a higher peak clock by 246 MHz, yet it still cannot close the FP32 gap because the MI300A packs 14,592 shading units against 6,144. Shader count differences of 2.37x outweigh the clock advantage of the N1X.

The transistor and die data reinforce the gulf in physical scale. The MI300A uses 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4M per mm². The N1X 48SM die measures 382 mm² with an unknown transistor count. The MI300A's die area is about 2.66 times larger, and it carries a far higher absolute transistor budget. Both chips are fabricated on TSMC 5 nm, but the architectural goals diverge sharply.

Neither part shows any benchmark results in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs with an average benchmark score of zero. The absence of measured data means the head-to-head section cannot rely on application tests. Instead, the specification sheet provides the only quantitative basis for comparison.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of roles. The AMD Instinct MI300A is built for compute density and memory bandwidth, with 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 128 GB of HBM3. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is an integrated processor with 28.83 TFLOPS FP32, 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, and the same 128 GB capacity but in LPDDR5X form. Anyone needing massive parallel throughput for dense numerical workloads should look at the MI300A. Anyone needing a GPU that can also drive a display output, since it has 1x HDMI, and operate within an IGP slot width, should consider the N1X 48SM.

The MI300A has zero pixel output capability, no ROPs, and no display outputs. It is not a graphics card in the conventional sense. The N1X 48SM, by contrast, has 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, 192 tensor cores, and a 112.6 GPixel/s pixel rate. The database indicates the N1X 48SM is in Active production status, while the MI300A's production status is null. The release dates also differ, with the MI300A appearing on 2023-12-05 and the N1X 48SM on 2026-05-31.

The verdict from the recorded data is that these are complementary devices, not competitors. The MI300A wins decisively on every compute and memory metric. The N1X 48SM wins on pixel rate, ray tracing hardware presence, tensor core count, and display connectivity. Neither part has any benchmark scores in the database, so no application-level winner can be declared.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A wins in raw FP32 throughput, holding a 2.13x advantage over the N1X 48SM. It also wins in texture rate by the same factor, and in memory bandwidth by a massive margin: 5.32 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s. The MI300A's 8192-bit bus width dwarfs the N1X's 256-bit bus. The MI300A also leads in shader unit count (14,592 versus 6,144), TMUs (912 versus 384), and transistor count (153,000 million versus unknown). Its base clock of 1000 MHz is higher than the N1X's 741 MHz, though the boost clock is lower at 2100 MHz versus 2346 MHz.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins in pixel rate, with 112.6 GPixel/s against 0 MPixel/s. It has 48 ROPs while the MI300A has none. The N1X also has 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, while the MI300A lists no RT cores and no tensor cores in the database. The N1X supports FP16 at 28.83 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, whereas the MI300A's FP16 field is null. The N1X has a display output (1x HDMI), while the MI300A has none. The N1X's boost clock is 246 MHz higher, and its die is smaller at 382 mm² versus 1017 mm², which could imply different packaging and integration constraints.

The N1X is designated as an IGP with a slot width of IGP, while the MI300A uses an OAM Module slot width. The N1X has a known production status of Active, while the MI300A's is unlisted. The N1X also carries a higher effective memory clock at 8.5 Gbps versus 5.2 Gbps, though the bus width difference overwhelms that advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which chip has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS, which is 2.13 times the 28.83 TFLOPS of the NVIDIA N1X 48SM.

Q: Do both parts have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both list 128 GB, but the MI300A uses HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the N1X 48SM uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which chip can output video?

A: Only the NVIDIA N1X 48SM has a display output, listed as 1x HDMI. The AMD Instinct MI300A has no outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

Q: What are the boost clocks for each?

A: The MI300A boosts to 2100 MHz, while the N1X 48SM boosts to 2346 MHz, making the NVIDIA part 246 MHz higher at peak.

Q: Does either chip have ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The AMD Instinct MI300A lists no RT cores and no tensor cores in the database.

Q: What are the manufacturing process nodes?

A: Both chips are fabricated on TSMC 5 nm. The MI300A die is 1017 mm², and the N1X 48SM die is 382 mm².

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300A is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture with the chip codename Aqua Vanjaram, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses Blackwell 2.0 architecture with chip GB20B, belonging to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. These architectural lineages point to entirely different design goals: CDNA 3.0 targets compute accelerators for data centers, while Blackwell 2.0 in this IGP variant targets integrated processing.

The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and zero ROPs. The N1X 48SM has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The absence of ROPs in the MI300A confirms it is not designed for rasterization output. The N1X's 48 ROPs enable its 112.6 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI300A's texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus the N1X's 900.9 GTexel/s reflects the shader and TMU count differences.

The MI300A includes no RT cores and no tensor cores in the recorded data. The N1X 48SM has 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The FP16 field is null for the MI300A, while the N1X lists 28.83 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. This suggests the N1X can handle mixed-precision workloads, whereas the MI300A's FP16 capabilities are not specified.

Memory architecture separates the two most clearly. The MI300A uses HBM3 with 8192-bit bus width and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The N1X uses LPDDR5X with 256-bit bus width and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300A's memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the N1X runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. Higher effective speed on the N1X cannot compensate for the 32x wider bus on the MI300A.

The MI300A has no power connectors listed and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, with a TDP of 750 W. The N1X 48SM has unknown TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The slot width differs: OAM Module for the MI300A versus IGP for the N1X. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, but the physical form factors are fundamentally different.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show the following differences between the two parts. The manufacturer differs: AMD versus NVIDIA. The chip names differ: Aqua Vanjaram versus GB20B. The architecture differs: CDNA 3.0 versus Blackwell 2.0. The generations differ: Instinct (MIx) versus Blackwell IGP (N1x). The transistor counts differ: 153,000 million versus unknown. The die sizes differ: 1017 mm² versus 382 mm². The transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI300A, with no value for the N1X.

The base clocks differ: 1000 MHz versus 741 MHz. The boost clocks differ: 2100 MHz versus 2346 MHz. The memory clocks differ: 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective versus 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. The memory types differ: HBM3 versus LPDDR5X. The bus widths differ: 8192 bit versus 256 bit. The bandwidths differ: 5.32 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.

The shading units differ: 14,592 versus 6,144. The TMUs differ: 912 versus 384. The ROPs differ: 0 versus 48. The RT cores differ: null versus 48. The tensor cores differ: null versus 192. The pixel rates differ: 0 MPixel/s versus 112.6 GPixel/s. The texture rates differ: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 900.9 GTexel/s. The FP32 values differ: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 28.83 TFLOPS. The FP16 values differ: null versus 28.83 TFLOPS with 1:1 ratio.

The TDP differs: 750 W versus unknown. The slot widths differ: OAM Module versus IGP. The suggested PSU differs: 1150 W for the MI300A, none for the N1X. The display outputs differ: no outputs versus 1x HDMI. The production status differs: null versus Active. The release dates differ: 2023-12-05 versus 2026-05-31. The predecessors differ: Radeon Instinct for the MI300A, null for the N1X. The successors are null for both.

The process node is the same at 5 nm, and the foundry is the same at TSMC. Both have no launch MSRP recorded. Both have no benchmark scores and sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs. The power connectors are listed as None for both. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for both. The API support is N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan on both parts. The dimensions are null for both. The series is null for both. The codename is null for both.