AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI300A or the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU. Both entries carry an average benchmark score of zero, and neither has associated nearest rivals or head-to-head benchmark results. As a result, direct performance comparisons must be derived entirely from the recorded hardware specifications rather than measured workload outcomes.

The MI300A delivers a peak FP32 throughput of 61.29 TFLOPS, while the Switch 2 GPU reaches 4.301 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at roughly 14.25 times the raw single-precision compute of the NVIDIA part. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: the MI300A sustains 1,915.2 GTexel/s against the Switch 2 GPU's 67.20 GTexel/s, a factor of approximately 28.5. The MI300A also reports a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, whereas the Switch 2 GPU produces 22.40 GPixel/s, meaning the NVIDIA chip is the only one of the two with a defined raster output stage.

Memory bandwidth differentiates the two heavily. The MI300A accesses 128 GB of HBM3 over an 8192 bit bus for 5.32 TB/s. The Switch 2 GPU uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X across a 128 bit bus for 102.4 GB/s. The MI300A provides about 51.95 times the memory bandwidth. Neither GPU has any recorded wins in the database, so the specification sheet is the sole basis for the comparison.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC. Its chip, Aqua Vanjaram, integrates 153,000 million transistors on a die of 1017 mm², producing a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Switch 2 GPU uses the Ampere architecture on an 8 nm process from Samsung. Its chip, GA10B, measures 200 mm², and the database does not list a transistor count or density for it.

The MI300A has no dedicated ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The Switch 2 GPU includes 12 ray tracing cores and 48 tensor cores. Shader organization differs: the MI300A contains 14,592 shading units, 912 texture mapping units, and no ROPs. The Switch 2 GPU contains 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The MI300A thus relies on a compute-focused design without a traditional pixel output stage, while the Switch 2 GPU includes fixed-function rendering hardware.

Memory technology marks another architectural split. The MI300A uses HBM3 with a 5.2 Gbps effective data rate and a 1300 MHz memory clock. The Switch 2 GPU uses LPDDR5X at 6.4 Gbps effective and an 800 MHz memory clock. The bus width difference, 8192 bit versus 128 bit, drives the massive bandwidth gap.

The MI300A reports no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The Switch 2 GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A has no display outputs, and the Switch 2 GPU also lists no display outputs. The MI300A uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Switch 2 GPU has no bus interface recorded. The MI300A draws 750 W with a suggested 1150 W power supply, while the Switch 2 GPU draws 40 W and has no suggested PSU listed.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 61.29 TFLOPS dwarfs the Switch 2 GPU's 4.301 TFLOPS. Texture rate also favors the AMD part: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s. Memory capacity and bandwidth are similarly lopsided, with 128 GB and 5.32 TB/s against 12 GB and 102.4 GB/s. The MI300A also has a larger die at 1017 mm², a more advanced 5 nm process, and a higher transistor count of 153,000 million, all of which point to a design aimed at high-throughput acceleration rather than interactive graphics.

The Switch 2 GPU wins in areas tied to conventional rendering and API compatibility. It provides 16 ROPs and a pixel rate of 22.40 GPixel/s, where the MI300A records 0 MPixel/s. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300A lists N/A for all three. The Switch 2 GPU also includes ray tracing and tensor hardware, neither of which appears on the MI300A. Power consumption strongly favors the NVIDIA part: 40 W versus 750 W, a difference of 18.75 times. The Switch 2 GPU is also smaller, at 200 mm² versus 1017 mm², and has a defined physical footprint of 272 mm by 116 mm by 14 mm.

The MI300A targets data-center scale parallel workloads where raw FP32, memory bandwidth, and capacity matter. The Switch 2 GPU targets a fixed console environment with a complete graphics API stack, fixed-function rasterization, and hardware-accelerated ray tracing at low power.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded field. Process node: 5 nm for AMD, 8 nm for NVIDIA. Foundry: TSMC versus Samsung. Die size: 1017 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor count: 153,000 million versus unknown. Transistor density: 150.4M per mm² versus null.

Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 561 MHz. Boost clock: 2100 MHz versus 1400 MHz. Memory clock: 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective versus 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective. Memory size: 128 GB versus 12 GB. Memory type: HBM3 versus LPDDR5X. Bus width: 8192 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

Shading units: 14,592 versus 1,536. TMUs: 912 versus 48. ROPs: 0 versus 16. Ray tracing cores: null versus 12. Tensor cores: null versus 48. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s. FP32: 61.29 TFLOPS versus 4.301 TFLOPS. FP16: null versus 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 750 W versus 40 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus null. Power connectors: None versus null. Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus null. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus null. Display outputs: No outputs on both. DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6. Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4. Dimensions: null for AMD, 272 mm by 116 mm by 14 mm for NVIDIA. Production status: null versus Active. Release date: 2023-12-05 versus 2025-06-04. Launch MSRP: null for AMD, 449 USD for NVIDIA. Predecessor: Radeon Instinct for AMD, null for NVIDIA.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU delivers 4.301 TFLOPS.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192 bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Switch 2 GPU uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128 bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Switch 2 GPU support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it includes 12 ray tracing cores. The MI300A has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What is the power draw of each GPU?

A: The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Switch 2 GPU has a TDP of 40 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX?

A: The Switch 2 GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The MI300A lists DirectX support as N/A.

Q: What are the release dates for the two parts?

A: The MI300A released on 2023-12-05. The Switch 2 GPU released on 2025-06-04.

The Verdict

The recorded data describes two GPUs with almost no functional overlap. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a high-power accelerator with 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 128 GB of HBM3, built for compute tasks that do not require a traditional graphics pipeline. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU is a low-power console part with 4.301 TFLOPS FP32, 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 12 GB of LPDDR5X, built for rendering with full API support, ROPs, and ray tracing hardware.

A user selecting purely on raw compute and memory throughput would choose the MI300A, which leads by roughly 14.25 times in FP32 and 51.95 times in memory bandwidth. A user selecting for fixed-function graphics, API compatibility, or power efficiency would choose the Switch 2 GPU, which is the only one of the two with a defined pixel rate, DirectX support, and ray tracing cores, and which draws 40 W against the MI300A's 750 W. The launch MSRP of the Switch 2 GPU is 449 USD; the MI300A has no listed launch MSRP.

The production status of the Switch 2 GPU is Active, while the MI300A's status is not recorded. The MI300A succeeds the Radeon Instinct line, while the Switch 2 GPU has no predecessor listed. Both parts share a percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs in the database, and both have zero recorded benchmark scores, so the verdict rests entirely on their specification sheets.