AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data for these two accelerators shows a complete split with no overlapping benchmark results. The AMD Instinct MI300A and the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation occupy entirely different performance domains, and neither wins a single head-to-head benchmark because no head-to-head benchmark results exist in the database. Instead, the differentiation must be derived from their architectural specifications and measured output capabilities.

The AMD Instinct MI300A is built for massive parallel compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 61.29 TFLOPS is the defining metric, more than 2.6 times the 23.04 TFLOPS delivered by the NVIDIA part. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 360.0 GTexel/s, a 5.3x advantage. The MI300A also carries 128 GB of HBM3 memory across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. That is 12.3 times the 432.0 GB/s available to the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada. For workloads that scale with raw floating-point throughput, memory capacity, or memory bandwidth, the AMD part is the clear winner in every measurable category.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation wins in a different set of categories, specifically those related to graphics and rendering features. It is the only one of the two with a pixel rate, delivering 144.0 GPixel/s, while the MI300A records 0 MPixel/s. The NVIDIA part also has 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores, hardware that the AMD accelerator lacks entirely. Its API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI300A reports N/A for all three. For any workload that requires rasterization, ray tracing, or standard graphics APIs, the NVIDIA part is the only viable option.

The power envelope also splits cleanly. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada draws only 100 W with a 300 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA part fits an IGP form factor, while the AMD part is an OAM Module. These are not competing products for the same socket or chassis; they are designed for different deployment scenarios.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these two accelerators should not be compared as direct substitutes. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a compute-oriented accelerator with overwhelming advantages in FP32 throughput, texture rate, memory size, and memory bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation is a graphics-capable embedded part with ray tracing, tensor cores, and full graphics API support, all within a 100 W envelope.

For workloads centered on dense math, large matrix operations, or high-bandwidth data movement, the MI300A is the only choice based on the recorded specifications. It delivers 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 128 GB of HBM3, figures that dwarf the NVIDIA part across the board. The 5 nm process node and TSMC foundry are shared, but the MI300A packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, versus 35,800 million on 294 mm² for the AD104 chip.

For workloads that require graphics output, ray tracing, or standard API compatibility, the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada is the only option. Its 144.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores provide capabilities the MI300A does not offer at all. The NVIDIA part also has a production status of Active, while the MI300A has no production status listed. The release dates differ as well: the NVIDIA part launched on 2023-03-20, and the AMD part on 2023-12-05.

Neither part has any benchmark scores in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The average benchmark score for both is 0. The verdict is straightforward: pick the MI300A for compute density, pick the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada for graphics features and low power.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, so no direct measured comparisons exist in the database. The analysis must rely on the specification-level differences, which are substantial and unambiguous.

The largest win for the AMD MI300A is in FP32 compute. The AMD part delivers 61.29 TFLOPS, which is 38.25 TFLOPS higher than the NVIDIA part's 23.04 TFLOPS. In relative terms, the AMD part provides 2.66 times the FP32 throughput. This gap is consistent with the shading unit count: 14,592 shading units on the AMD side versus 5,120 on the NVIDIA side.

Memory bandwidth is the second major win for the AMD part. The MI300A reaches 5.32 TB/s, while the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada manages 432.0 GB/s. The AMD part also has 128 GB of memory versus 12 GB, a 10.7x capacity advantage. The bus width difference is equally stark: 8192 bit versus 192 bit.

The texture rate follows the same trajectory. The MI300A achieves 1,915.2 GTexel/s with 912 TMUs, while the NVIDIA part achieves 360.0 GTexel/s with 160 TMUs. That is a 5.3x advantage for the AMD part.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada wins in pixel rate, a category where the MI300A records zero. The NVIDIA part's 144.0 GPixel/s comes from its 64 ROPs, a resource the AMD part does not have. The NVIDIA part also has higher clock speeds: a base clock of 1725 MHz and a boost clock of 2250 MHz, versus 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost for the AMD part. The memory clock is also higher on the NVIDIA side at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), versus 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the AMD part.

The AMD part does have a higher transistor density, at 150.4M transistors per mm² versus 121.8M for the NVIDIA part, but this is a minor point given the absolute differences in scale.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 23.04 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation, a 2.66x advantage.

Q: Which accelerator has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 memory with a 5.32 TB/s bandwidth on an 8192-bit bus. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada has 12 GB of GDDR6 with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Does the NVIDIA part support graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A reports N/A for all three APIs.

Q: Which accelerator has ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores. The AMD MI300A has no RT cores or tensor cores listed.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada has a TDP of 100 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: What are the form factors?

A: The MI300A uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators use different GPU architectures from different manufacturers. The AMD Instinct MI300A is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, using the Aqua Vanjaram chip, and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace architecture, with the AD104 chip, and belongs to the Ada-MW generation, which is part of the GeForce 30-series series.

Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the die sizes differ substantially. The MI300A has a die size of 1017 mm², while the AD104 chip measures 294 mm². The transistor counts are 153,000 million for the AMD part and 35,800 million for the NVIDIA part. The transistor density is 150.4M transistors per mm² for the AMD part and 121.8M for the NVIDIA part.

The AMD part uses HBM3 memory with a 5.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the NVIDIA part uses GDDR6 with an 18 Gbps effective data rate. The AMD part has 14,592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 5,120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores, which are absent from the AMD specification sheet.

The AMD part does not list DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither part has display outputs. The AMD part uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

The AMD part has a release date of 2023-12-05, with a predecessor of Radeon Instinct and no successor listed. The NVIDIA part has a release date of 2023-03-20, with a predecessor of Ampere-MW and a successor of Blackwell-MW. The NVIDIA part has a production status of Active, while the AMD part has none listed.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ in nearly every specification field. The AMD Instinct MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has a base clock of 1725 MHz and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. The memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the AMD part and 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA part.

Memory size is 128 GB for the AMD part versus 12 GB for the NVIDIA part. Memory type is HBM3 for the AMD part and GDDR6 for the NVIDIA part. Bus width is 8192 bit for the AMD part and 192 bit for the NVIDIA part. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s for the AMD part and 432.0 GB/s for the NVIDIA part.

Shading units are 14,592 for the AMD part and 5,120 for the NVIDIA part. TMUs are 912 for the AMD part and 160 for the NVIDIA part. ROPs are 0 for the AMD part and 64 for the NVIDIA part. RT cores are not listed for the AMD part and 40 for the NVIDIA part. Tensor cores are not listed for the AMD part and 160 for the NVIDIA part.

Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the AMD part and 144.0 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part. Texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s for the AMD part and 360.0 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part. FP32 performance is 61.29 TFLOPS for the AMD part and 23.04 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part. The NVIDIA part also lists FP16 at 23.04 TFLOPS (1:1), while the AMD part does not list FP16.

TDP is 750 W for the AMD part and 100 W for the NVIDIA part. Slot width is OAM Module for the AMD part and IGP for the NVIDIA part. Neither has power connectors. Suggested PSU is 1150 W for the AMD part and 300 W for the NVIDIA part. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the AMD part and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the NVIDIA part. Neither has display outputs. Neither has listed dimensions. Neither has a launch MSRP.