AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI300A versus the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation. This absence is itself informative. The two products occupy separate segments of the hardware landscape, and the database shows no overlapping performance measurements. The AMD Instinct MI300A has an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs. The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation also records an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50. Neither part has nearest rivals listed, and neither has wins assigned in a head-to-head comparison.

Without direct measurements, the FP32 compute figures provide the clearest numerical contrast. The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 15.62 TFLOPS. This puts the AMD part at roughly four times the FP32 compute of the NVIDIA part, a difference of 45.67 TFLOPS. Texture rate shows a similar pattern: the MI300A processes 1,915.2 GTexel/s, while the RTX 3000 Mobile Ada reaches 244.1 GTexel/s. That is a multiple of roughly 7.8 in favor of the AMD accelerator.

Memory bandwidth tells a comparable story. The MI300A has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, while the RTX 3000 Mobile Ada has 256.0 GB/s. The AMD part exceeds the NVIDIA part by a factor of about 20.8 in raw memory throughput. Pixel rate is the only metric where the NVIDIA part has a nonzero value: 81.36 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s for the MI300A, which has no raster output units and no display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural lineages. AMD uses CDNA 3.0, the architecture powering the Instinct (MIx) generation, built around the Aqua Vanjaram chip. NVIDIA uses Ada Lovelace, the architecture behind the Ada-MW generation, built around the AD106 chip. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the similarity ends there.

Transistor counts diverge sharply. The MI300A packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada has 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, for a density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The AMD die is over five times larger and holds nearly seven times as many transistors.

The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The AMD part supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the NVIDIA part supports PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300A has no display outputs and exposes no graphics APIs, with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all listed as N/A. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its display outputs are portable device dependent.

Shader resources differ by a wide margin. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units, with zero ROPs. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada has 4,608 shading units, 144 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 36 ray tracing cores, and 144 tensor cores. The MI300A lists no ray tracing or tensor core counts. Clock behavior also differs: the MI300A runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the RTX 3000 Mobile Ada runs at a 1395 MHz base and 1695 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part has a higher base clock, but the AMD part has a higher boost clock.

Power and physical design separate the two further. The MI300A has a 750 W TDP and uses an OAM Module slot, with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada has a 115 W TDP, uses an IGP slot, has no power connectors, and records no suggested PSU. The MI300A was released on 2023-12-05, the RTX 3000 Mobile Ada on 2023-03-20. The AMD part succeeds Radeon Instinct, while the NVIDIA part succeeds Ampere-MW and has Blackwell-MW as its successor.

FAQ

Q: How do FP32 compute figures compare?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 15.62 TFLOPS. The AMD part is approximately four times higher in FP32 throughput.

Q: Which part has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI300A has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth via HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada has 256.0 GB/s via GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The AMD part exceeds the NVIDIA part by a factor of roughly 20.8.

Q: Can either part output to a display?

A: The MI300A has no display outputs and lists no graphics APIs. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada has display outputs listed as portable device dependent and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300A has a 750 W TDP and uses an OAM Module slot. The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada has a 115 W TDP and uses an IGP slot. Neither part has power connectors listed, and only the MI300A has a suggested PSU at 1150 W.

Q: Do the two parts use the same process node?

A: Both use a 5 nm process at TSMC. However, the MI300A has a die size of 1017 mm² with 153,000 million transistors, while the RTX 3000 Mobile Ada has a die size of 188 mm² with 22,900 million transistors.

Q: Which part has ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: The RTX 3000 Mobile Ada has 36 ray tracing cores and 144 tensor cores. The MI300A lists no ray tracing or tensor core counts, and its shading unit, TMU, and ROP configuration is optimized for compute rather than graphics.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram (AMD) versus AD106 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 versus Ada Lovelace
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus Ada-MW
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus 22,900 million
• Die Size: 1017 mm² versus 188 mm²
• Transistor Density: 150.4M / mm² versus 121.8M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz versus 1395 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2100 MHz versus 1695 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective versus 2000 MHz 16 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 128 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory Type: HBM3 versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 14592 versus 4608
• TMUs: 912 versus 144
• ROPs: 0 versus 48
• RT Cores: Not listed versus 36
• Tensor Cores: Not listed versus 144
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 81.36 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 244.1 GTexel/s
• FP32: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 15.62 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed versus 15.62 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 750 W versus 115 W
• Slot Width: OAM Module versus IGP
• Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus not listed
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4
• Release Date: 2023-12-05 versus 2023-03-20
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus Ampere-MW
• Successor: Not listed versus Blackwell-MW
• Production Status: Not listed versus Active

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A wins decisively in compute density and memory capacity. Its FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS and texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s indicate a part designed for sustained, high-volume calculation. The 128 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth gives it a massive advantage for workloads that need to hold large datasets close to the processor. Its 750 W TDP and OAM Module form factor point to a server or datacenter installation, not a desktop or mobile chassis. The absence of display outputs and graphics APIs confirms its role as an accelerator rather than a rendering device.

The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation wins in graphics functionality and power efficiency. It is the only one of the two with ROPs, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and a pixel rate of 81.36 GPixel/s. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a viable graphics processor for applications that render frames. Its 115 W TDP is less than one-sixth of the MI300A's, and its IGP slot indicates a mobile or integrated form factor. The higher base clock of 1395 MHz and the 1:1 FP16 ratio of 15.62 TFLOPS also show a design tuned for balanced throughput within a constrained power envelope.

For large-scale numerical simulation, AI training, or high-performance computing, the data points to the MI300A. For portable graphics, ray tracing, or general GPU-accelerated rendering, the data points to the RTX 3000 Mobile Ada. The two parts do not compete for the same workload; they serve different ends of the hardware spectrum.