AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Instinct MI308X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains a single recorded OpenCL result for the AMD Instinct MI300X, while the AMD Instinct MI308X has no recorded benchmark scores. The MI300X posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, placing it in the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The MI308X, with an average benchmark score of zero and a 50th percentile ranking, cannot be directly compared through measured performance data.

The MI300X's score of 317,994 positions it against a specific set of nearest rivals. The NVIDIA H200 NVL leads with an average score of 334,891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X. The NVIDIA B200 sits further ahead at 345,482, an 8% advantage. On the other side, the NVIDIA L40S trails with 295,763, meaning the MI300X is 7.5% ahead of it. The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287,237, and the MI300X holds a 10.7% lead over that part.

Because the MI308X has no benchmark entries in the database, the head-to-head comparison is limited to specification-level analysis. The recorded data shows identical specifications for both accelerators across every measurable hardware parameter. The absence of benchmark results for the MI308X means no delta percentages can be calculated between the two AMD parts. The MI300X's single score demonstrates a strong position relative to NVIDIA's data center offerings, but the MI308X's performance class remains unquantified in the current database.

The wins tally shows zero wins for each product in head-to-head benchmark comparisons, reflecting the empty head-to-head benchmark array and the lack of recorded scores for the MI308X. The MI300X's percentile ranking of 100 indicates it outperforms every other GPU in the database on the OpenCL test, a notable achievement given the competition from NVIDIA's H200 and B200 parts. The MI308X's 50th percentile is a default midpoint value, not a measured result, as its average benchmark score is zero.

Architecture Differences

Both the AMD Instinct MI300X and the AMD Instinct MI308X share the same underlying architecture. They use the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Each die contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The core configuration is identical: 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, which results in a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s.

The clock specifications match exactly. Both parts run at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. Memory clocks are set at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate. Neither accelerator includes dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, consistent with the compute-focused CDNA 3.0 design. The FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS, and the FP16 throughput is also 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, indicating that the hardware does not employ a separate accelerated path for half-precision arithmetic.

The memory subsystem is identical as well. Each card carries 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The power envelope is specified at 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU rating of 1150 W. The slot width is listed as OAM Module, and the power connectors are listed as None, which aligns with the Open Accelerator Module form factor where power is supplied through the baseboard rather than discrete connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16, and there are no display outputs, as these are compute accelerators rather than graphics cards.

The API support is also identical: DirectX is marked as N/A, OpenGL is N/A, and Vulkan is N/A. This reflects the non-graphics nature of the Instinct product line. Both parts have the same release date of December 5, 2023. The predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct for both, and neither has a successor recorded in the database. The production status is not specified for either part.

Where Each One Wins

Given the absence of benchmark data for the MI308X, the use-case analysis relies entirely on the MI300X's measured results and the shared architectural profile. The MI300X wins in any scenario where a single recorded OpenCL score is the deciding factor, as it delivers 317,994 points and ranks in the 100th percentile. The MI308X cannot claim a benchmark win because no scores exist for it in the database.

The MI300X's nearest rival comparisons show where it wins and loses among NVIDIA parts. It beats the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%, making it a strong choice for workloads that are well-represented by the Geekbench OpenCL test. It falls short of the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% and the NVIDIA B200 by 8%, indicating that those parts hold a performance edge in the same test.

For the MI308X, the identical specifications suggest it should perform similarly to the MI300X in compute-heavy tasks such as large-scale matrix operations, memory-bandwidth-bound workloads, and inference or training scenarios that leverage the 192 GB HBM3 pool. The 5.32 TB/s bandwidth and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are the same on both parts, so any difference would come from factors not captured in the database, such as driver maturity or firmware revisions. The database does not record any such differences.

The MI300X's 100th percentile ranking means it is at the top of the database's GPU performance distribution, a position that the MI308X cannot claim with zero recorded results. Workloads that benefit from the MI300X's measured OpenCL performance include those that are compute-intensive and memory-hungry, given the 192 GB capacity and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The MI308X, with the same memory and compute specs, would be expected to serve the same workload types, but the lack of data prevents a quantitative confirmation.

Specification Differences

A field-by-field comparison of the two accelerators shows no differences in any recorded specification. The chip is Aqua Vanjaram for both, the architecture is CDNA 3.0 for both, and the process node is 5 nm for both. The foundry is TSMC for both. Transistor count is 153,000 million on both, and the die size is 1017 mm² on both. Transistor density is 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter on both.

The clock section is identical: base clock 1000 MHz, boost clock 2100 MHz, memory clock 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. The memory configuration is the same: 192 GB of HBM3, 8192-bit bus width, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The shading unit count is 19,456 on both, TMUs are 1,216 on both, and ROPs are 0 on both. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s on both, texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s on both, and FP32 and FP16 throughput are both 81.72 TFLOPS on both.

The power and form factor details match exactly. TDP is 750 W for both, slot width is OAM Module for both, power connectors are None for both, and suggested PSU is 1150 W for both. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for both, and display outputs are No outputs for both. The API support is N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan on both. Dimensions are not recorded for either part. The release date is the same, December 5, 2023, for both. The predecessor is Radeon Instinct for both, and no successor is listed for either.

The only meaningful difference in the database lies in the benchmark and percentile fields. The MI300X has one recorded benchmark with a score of 317,994, a 100th percentile ranking, and an average benchmark score of 317,994. The MI308X has no recorded benchmarks, a 50th percentile ranking, and an average benchmark score of 0. The nearest rivals are listed only for the MI300X; the MI308X has an empty nearest rivals array.

FAQ

Q: What is the recorded benchmark score for the AMD Instinct MI300X?

A: The MI300X has a single Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, which places it in the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI308X have any recorded benchmark results?

A: No, the MI308X has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of 0, and a 50th percentile ranking in the database.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA H200 NVL?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL has an average score of 334,891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X's 317,994. The MI300X trails the H200 NVL in this comparison.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to the NVIDIA L40S?

A: The MI300X leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5%. The L40S has an average score of 295,763, while the MI300X scores 317,994.

Q: Are there any architectural differences between the MI300X and MI308X?

A: No, the database records identical specifications for both parts, including the same chip (Aqua Vanjaram), architecture (CDNA 3.0), process node (5 nm), transistor count (153,000 million), memory configuration (192 GB HBM3), and clock speeds (1000 MHz base, 2100 MHz boost).

Q: What is the FP32 throughput for both accelerators?

A: Both the MI300X and MI308X deliver 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, with the same FP16 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear asymmetry between the two AMD accelerators. The MI300X has a measured Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. This score puts it 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S and 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation, while trailing the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% and the NVIDIA B200 by 8%. For users selecting between these two AMD parts based on recorded data, the MI300X is the only one with a proven performance result.

The MI308X, with no benchmark scores and an average benchmark score of 0, cannot be recommended on the basis of measured performance. Its 50th percentile ranking is a placeholder, not a result. However, the specification sheets for both parts are identical across every field in the database: same chip, same architecture, same memory, same clocks, same power, same form factor. If the MI308X is a revision or variant of the same hardware, the recorded data suggests it should behave equivalently, but the database contains no evidence of that behavior.

Users who require a quantified performance position should choose the MI300X, as it has a recorded score and a 100th percentile ranking. Users who must use the MI308X for other reasons, such as availability or platform compatibility, will find no data contradicting the expectation of similar performance, but they will also find no data confirming it. The verdict from the database is straightforward: the MI300X is the measured performer, and the MI308X is an unquantified equivalent on paper.