AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon 740M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300X and AMD Radeon 740M occupy opposite ends of the AMD GPU spectrum, one a data center accelerator built for massive compute throughput and the other an integrated graphics processor for thin-and-light mobile systems. The recorded benchmark data shows a performance gap of enormous proportions, with the MI300X delivering a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994 against the 740M's 10,172, a difference of 3,026.2% in favor of the accelerator. The MI300X also sits at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the 740M rests at the 53rd percentile, placing it squarely in the midrange of recorded results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two parts is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are not close. The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, while the AMD Radeon 740M scores 10,172, yielding a delta of 3,026.2% in favor of the MI300X. This is not a marginal difference or a case of one part being slightly faster; the accelerator outperforms the integrated GPU by over thirty times in raw compute throughput.

Placing the MI300X against its nearest rivals in the database clarifies its standing. The NVIDIA H200 NVL leads it by 5% with a score of 334,891, and the NVIDIA B200 leads by 8% with 345,482. The MI300X beats the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% (295,763) and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7% (287,237). These are competitive margins among top-tier data center accelerators, suggesting the MI300X is firmly within the leading cluster of compute GPUs rather than an outlier in either direction.

The Radeon 740M, by contrast, sits in a much tighter pack of rivals. Its 10,172 OpenCL score places it just 0.2% behind the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847), 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12,831), and 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830). It leads the AMD Radeon RX 580 by 0.4%, which scored 12,928. These sub-one-percent deltas indicate the 740M performs in line with a well-established group of midrange desktop and workstation GPUs from earlier generations, despite being an integrated part.

The Vulkan benchmark is only recorded for the 740M, which scores 15,568, and there is no corresponding MI300X Vulkan result in the database. The MI300X also has no recorded DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, consistent with its role as a compute-focused accelerator with no display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins decisively in raw compute workloads that scale with massive parallel throughput. Its OpenCL score of 317,994 reflects a part designed for high-performance computing, AI training, and inference tasks where the 19,456 shading units can be kept busy. The accelerator's 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 and matching 81.72 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1) indicate balanced performance across both precision formats, which matters for workloads that do not require reduced-precision tensor operations.

The Radeon 740M wins in the contexts where it is used: integrated graphics for portable systems. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, meaning it can run modern graphics APIs and handle display output, with the actual connectors being motherboard dependent. Its pixel rate of 22.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 44.80 GTexel/s, while far below the MI300X's 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate, are enough for basic rendering tasks on an integrated part. The 740M also has 4 ray tracing cores, giving it hardware support for ray-traced effects that the MI300X lacks, as the MI300X reports no RT core count.

In terms of benchmark wins in the head-to-head data, the MI300X records 1 win (OpenCL) and the 740M records 0. The 740M's Vulkan result has no counterpart for comparison, so it cannot be counted as a head-to-head win.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families within AMD's lineup. The MI300X uses CDNA 3.0, built on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the 740M uses RDNA 3.0, built on the Phoenix2 chip. These architectures target different workloads: CDNA is optimized for compute and data center acceleration, while RDNA is optimized for graphics rendering and consumer-facing workloads.

The manufacturing process differs as well. The MI300X is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the 740M uses a 4 nm process at the same foundry. Despite the smaller process node, the transistor counts are wildly different. The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The 740M contains 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die, with a density of 152.6M per mm². The density figures are nearly identical, which suggests both chips are using their respective process nodes efficiently, but the MI300X's die is roughly 7.4 times larger in area and holds over 7 times the transistor count.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The 740M uses system shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system's configuration. This makes the 740M's memory performance entirely situational, while the MI300X has a fixed, enormous memory subsystem.

Clock speeds also differ in character. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the 740M has a base of 800 MHz and a boost of 2800 MHz. The 740M's higher boost clock reflects its smaller, lower-power design, but the MI300X compensates with vastly more execution resources.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Instinct MI300X than the AMD Radeon 740M in OpenCL?

A: The MI300X scores 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL against the 740M's 10,172, a 3,026.2% difference in favor of the MI300X.

Q: Does the Radeon 740M support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the 740M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X reports no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 740M uses system shared memory, with its capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth dependent on the host system.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The MI300X trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% and the NVIDIA B200 by 8%, while leading the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%.

Q: How does the Radeon 740M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 740M trails the AMD FirePro W5100, AMD Radeon Pro 455, and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 by 0.2% to 0.3%, and leads the AMD Radeon RX 580 by 0.4%.

Q: What are the power requirements of each GPU?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The 740M has a TDP of 45 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification category. The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the 740M uses RDNA 3.0 on the Phoenix2 chip. The process node is 5 nm for the MI300X and 4 nm for the 740M, both at TSMC. Transistor count is 153,000 million for the MI300X versus 20,900 million for the 740M, and die size is 1017 mm² versus 137 mm². Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI300X and 152.6M per mm² for the 740M.

Clock speeds are 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost for the MI300X, versus 800 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost for the 740M. Memory differs fundamentally: the MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the 740M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The MI300X's memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the 740M reports no dedicated memory clock.

Compute resources differ by orders of magnitude. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, while the 740M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The MI300X reports no RT cores, while the 740M has 4. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI300X and 22.40 GPixel/s for the 740M. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI300X and 44.80 GTexel/s for the 740M. FP32 and FP16 are both 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300X, and both 2.867 TFLOPS for the 740M.

Power and form factor also differ. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W, uses an OAM module slot width, and has no power connectors. The 740M has a TDP of 45 W, is an IGP, and also has no power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X and PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 740M. The MI300X has no display outputs, while the 740M's outputs are motherboard dependent. API support is absent for the MI300X, while the 740M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are December 5, 2023 for the MI300X and January 30, 2024 for the 740M. The MI300X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, while the 740M's predecessor is Navi II IGP and its successor is Navi III IGP.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split by intended use. The AMD Instinct MI300X is for compute-heavy environments where the 317,994 OpenCL score, 192 GB of HBM3 memory, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth can be fully utilized. Its performance relative to the NVIDIA H200 NVL, B200, L40S, and RTX 6000 Ada Generation places it among the leading data center accelerators in the database, with deltas ranging from 8% behind the fastest rival to 10.7% ahead of the slowest.

The AMD Radeon 740M is for systems requiring integrated graphics with modern API support. Its scores of 10,172 in OpenCL and 15,568 in Vulkan, along with its 53rd percentile ranking, position it as a midrange performer among all recorded GPUs. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD FirePro W5100, AMD Radeon Pro 455, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590, and AMD Radeon RX 580, all fall within 0.4% of its score, indicating consistent midrange performance.

The choice between these two parts is dictated by the system context. The MI300X cannot output display and has no graphics API support, making it unsuitable for conventional desktop use. The 740M cannot approach the compute throughput of the MI300X, making it unsuitable for high-performance compute workloads. Each GPU serves its respective market segment, and the benchmark data confirms they are not competitors but rather complementary products in AMD's portfolio.