AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon 760M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively one-sided. The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, while the AMD Radeon 760M scores 20,255. That puts the MI300X 1,470 percent ahead in this test, a gap that dwarfs the differences typically seen between competing desktop graphics cards.

To contextualize the MI300X score, the database lists its nearest rivals among all GPUs. The NVIDIA H200 NVL averages 334,891, which is 5 percent higher than the MI300X. The NVIDIA B200 sits at 345,482, an 8 percent advantage. On the other side, the NVIDIA L40S averages 295,763, which is 7.5 percent behind, and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation averages 287,237, putting it 10.7 percent behind. The MI300X therefore lands in the upper tier of accelerator-class hardware, trading positions with the H200 and B200 while remaining ahead of the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada.

The Radeon 760M, by contrast, sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are much closer in score: the AMD Radeon RX 6400 averages 6,001, a 0.3 percent difference, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M also averages 6,000, again 0.3 percent apart. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server averages 5,996, a 0.4 percent gap, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 averages 6,049, putting it 0.5 percent ahead. These margins are tiny, indicating the 760M is a mid-pack integrated GPU whose OpenCL result is competitive with entry-level discrete cards from several generations ago.

Because there is only one shared benchmark, no other head-to-head comparisons can be made from the recorded data. The MI300X has one win in the head-to-head table; the 760M has none.

The Verdict

The data separates these two products into entirely different categories. The Instinct MI300X is a data-center accelerator built for compute throughput, and its OpenCL score reflects that positioning. At 317,994, it outperforms the Radeon 760M by a factor of roughly 15.7 in raw compute. The 760M, an integrated GPU inside a Phoenix chip, is designed for light rendering and everyday graphics work, not for massive parallel workloads.

Who should pick which depends strictly on the workload. The MI300X is the choice for applications that demand maximum OpenCL compute, where the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA H200 NVL and B200. The 760M is the choice for systems where the GPU is part of a mobile or low-power platform, and the benchmark data shows it sits among the RX 6400, GTX 770M, and Quadro P2000 in performance. The two products do not compete with each other in any practical sense; the benchmark gap is so large that any comparison is purely academic.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The architecture is compute-optimized, with 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, but it has zero raster operations units, which explains its 0 MPixel/s pixel rate.

The Radeon 760M uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Phoenix chip, fabricated on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, for a density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, producing a 41.58 GPixel/s pixel rate. It also includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the MI300X's specification.

The MI300X operates with a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The 760M starts lower at 800 MHz base but boosts higher to 2599 MHz. Memory architectures diverge completely: the MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1300 MHz, while the 760M uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent.

The MI300X supports no graphics APIs, listing DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X has no display outputs; the 760M's outputs are motherboard dependent. The MI300X is an OAM module with no power connectors and a recommended 1150 W PSU, while the 760M is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, the 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ in almost every measurable specification. Process node: 5 nm for the MI300X, 4 nm for the 760M. Transistors: 153,000 million versus 25,390 million. Die size: 1017 mm² versus 178 mm². Transistor density: 150.4M per mm² versus 142.6M per mm². Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 800 MHz. Boost clock: 2100 MHz versus 2599 MHz. Memory clock: 1300 MHz versus system shared. Memory size: 192 GB versus system shared. Memory type: HBM3 versus system shared. Bus width: 8192 bit versus system shared. Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus system dependent.

Shading units: 19,456 versus 512. TMUs: 1,216 versus 32. ROPs: 0 versus 16. Ray tracing cores: none versus 8. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 41.58 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 83.17 GTexel/s. FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 5.323 TFLOPS. FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 5.323 TFLOPS, both at a 1:1 ratio. TDP: 750 W versus 15 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus IGP. Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus none. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: none versus motherboard dependent. Release date: December 5, 2023 versus January 30, 2024. Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus Navi II IGP. Production status: not listed versus active.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Instinct MI300X than the AMD Radeon 760M in OpenCL?

A: The MI300X scores 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the 760M scores 20,255. The MI300X is 1,470 percent ahead in that test.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the MI300X in the database?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL averages 334,891 (5 percent higher), the NVIDIA B200 averages 345,482 (8 percent higher), the NVIDIA L40S averages 295,763 (7.5 percent lower), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation averages 287,237 (10.7 percent lower).

Q: How does the Radeon 760M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 760M averages 6,019 across all benchmarks. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 averages 6,001 (0.3 percent lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M averages 6,000 (0.3 percent lower), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server averages 5,996 (0.4 percent lower), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 averages 6,049 (0.5 percent higher).

Q: Does the MI300X support any graphics APIs?

A: No. The MI300X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The Radeon 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What memory configurations do the two chips use?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 760M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The 760M has a TDP of 15 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins in every category where raw compute throughput matters. Its FP32 and FP16 performance are both 81.72 TFLOPS, versus 5.323 TFLOPS for the 760M. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is orders of magnitude above the 760M's 83.17 GTexel/s. The 192 GB HBM3 memory pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is designed for large model inference and training workloads, where memory capacity and bandwidth determine feasibility. The absence of display outputs and graphics API support confirms this is a compute-only device.

The 760M wins where integration and power efficiency matter. Its 15 W TDP is 50 times lower than the MI300X's 750 W. It is an IGP, meaning it fits directly into a processor package with no separate module or power delivery requirements. It supports modern graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, and it has 8 ray tracing cores, which the MI300X lacks entirely. Its pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s, while modest, is infinitely higher than the MI300X's 0 MPixel/s. For systems that need display output, the 760M provides motherboard dependent outputs, while the MI300X provides none.

The benchmark data captures only one overlapping test, but that test tells the full story. The MI300X operates in the top percentile of all GPUs, sharing space with NVIDIA's H200 NVL and B200. The 760M operates in the 35th percentile, alongside entry-level discrete GPUs from prior generations. Each device wins in its intended domain: the MI300X for massive parallel compute, the 760M for low-power integrated graphics with full API support.