AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon 780M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300X and AMD Radeon 780M occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The MI300X is a data center accelerator built for massive parallel workloads, while the 780M is an integrated GPU designed for everyday computing. The recorded benchmarks show a single direct comparison between them, and that comparison reveals a gap of 1609.5%, with the MI300X scoring 317994 and the 780M scoring 18602 in Geekbench OpenCL. This analysis walks through the data behind that result, the architectural divergence, and what each part is suited for.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark test in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The MI300X returns a score of 317994, while the 780M returns 18602. The MI300X is ahead by 1609.5% in this test, which is a dominant margin. To put that number in context, the MI300X sits at the 100th percentile of all recorded GPUs, meaning no other part in the database scores higher. Its nearest rivals are all NVIDIA data center accelerators: the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334891 (5% higher), the NVIDIA B200 at 345482 (8% higher), the NVIDIA L40S at 295763 (7.5% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation at 287237 (10.7% lower). The MI300X is competitive with the top accelerators, trailing the H200 and B200 by small margins, but leading the L40S and RTX 6000 by notable amounts.

The 780M, by contrast, sits at the 61st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are much closer in performance: the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17551 (0.2% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17639 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 7790 at 17666 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17509 (0.5% lower). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning the 780M is statistically level with mid-range desktop GPUs from several generations. The Geekbench OpenCL result of 18602 places it in that cluster, and its average benchmark score across all tests is 17588, which is consistent with that grouping.

The head-to-head comparison has only one test, and the MI300X wins it. There is no recorded test where the 780M comes out ahead. The wins tally is 1 for the MI300X and 0 for the 780M. This is not a balanced contest; the MI300X is designed to crush compute workloads, and the data confirms that. The 780M is an integrated solution that competes with discrete desktop GPUs from years past, not with data center accelerators.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architecture families entirely. The MI300X uses CDNA 3.0, AMD’s compute-focused architecture, built on the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The 780M uses RDNA 3.0, AMD’s graphics-focused architecture, built on the Phoenix chip. CDNA 3.0 targets throughput, with no display outputs and no rasterization pipeline, while RDNA 3.0 targets rendering and includes a full graphics feature set.

The manufacturing processes also differ. The MI300X is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the 780M is on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts are far apart: the MI300X has 153,000 million transistors on a die size of 1017 mm², giving a density of 150.4M per mm². The 780M has 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, with a density of 142.6M per mm². The MI300X is a massive chip, roughly 5.7 times larger by die area and holding over 6 times the transistors.

Memory is another stark difference. The MI300X carries 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1300 MHz, which translates to 5.2 Gbps effective. The 780M uses system shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. No dedicated VRAM is present; it borrows from the host system.

The compute units are scaled accordingly. The MI300X has 19456 shading units, 1216 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. Its pixel rate is listed as 0 MPixel/s, and its texture rate is 2553.6 GTexel/s. The 780M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 92.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 139.2 GTexel/s. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the 780M does.

Floating-point performance shows the intended use case. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, on a 1:1 ratio. The 780M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS for FP32 and 8.909 TFLOPS for FP16, also 1:1. The MI300X is roughly 9.2 times higher in raw FP32 throughput. Clock speeds are also notable: the MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz, while the 780M has a base of 800 MHz and a boost of 2900 MHz. The 780M boosts much higher, but its narrower architecture cannot compensate for the MI300X’s sheer width.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins in every recorded benchmark comparison. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 317994 is in a different class from the 780M’s 18602. This is expected for a part with 192 GB of HBM3 memory, 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The data shows it is built for compute-heavy environments: large-scale matrix operations, scientific simulation, and AI training or inference. Its position at the 100th percentile of all GPUs confirms it is among the fastest accelerators ever recorded, even if the NVIDIA H200 NVL and B200 edge it slightly in OpenCL.

The 780M wins in practical utility for mainstream systems, but not in raw benchmark scores. Its architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300X reports N/A for all three APIs. The 780M also has display outputs, though they are motherboard dependent, and it is an IGP, meaning it is integrated into a processor package. Its TDP is 15 W, which is negligible compared to the MI300X’s 750 W. The 780M also runs on a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

In other benchmark tests, the 780M shows versatility. It has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33683. These tests are not available for the MI300X, so no direct comparison exists, but they indicate the 780M can handle gaming and general graphics workloads. The MI300X has no such tests recorded, reinforcing its role as a compute-only device.

Specification Differences

A direct specification comparison highlights where the two parts diverge:

• Process node: 5 nm for the MI300X, 4 nm for the 780M
• Transistors: 153,000 million for the MI300X, 25,390 million for the 780M
• Die size: 1017 mm² for the MI300X, 178 mm² for the 780M
• Transistor density: 150.4M / mm² for the MI300X, 142.6M / mm² for the 780M
• Base clock: 1000 MHz for the MI300X, 800 MHz for the 780M
• Boost clock: 2100 MHz for the MI300X, 2900 MHz for the 780M
• Memory size: 192 GB for the MI300X, system shared for the 780M
• Memory type: HBM3 for the MI300X, system shared for the 780M
• Memory bus width: 8192 bit for the MI300X, system shared for the 780M
• Memory bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s for the MI300X, system dependent for the 780M
• Shading units: 19456 for the MI300X, 768 for the 780M
• TMUs: 1216 for the MI300X, 48 for the 780M
• ROPs: 0 for the MI300X, 32 for the 780M
• Ray tracing cores: not listed for the MI300X, 12 for the 780M
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s for the MI300X, 92.80 GPixel/s for the 780M
• Texture rate: 2553.6 GTexel/s for the MI300X, 139.2 GTexel/s for the 780M
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300X, 8.909 TFLOPS for the 780M
• FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300X, 8.909 TFLOPS for the 780M
• TDP: 750 W for the MI300X, 15 W for the 780M
• Slot width: OAM Module for the MI300X, IGP for the 780M
• Power connectors: none for both
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 780M
• Display outputs: none for the MI300X, motherboard dependent for the 780M
• API support: N/A for the MI300X, DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 for the 780M

The MI300X is a discrete accelerator module with no display outputs and no graphics API support. The 780M is an integrated GPU with full graphics capabilities. Their power envelopes are 50 times apart, with the MI300X drawing 750 W and the 780M drawing 15 W.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317994, while the AMD Radeon 780M scores 18602. The MI300X leads by 1609.5%.

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

A: The MI300X trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% (334891 vs 317994) and the NVIDIA B200 by 8% (345482 vs 317994). It leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% (295763) and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7% (287237).

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 780M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: Does the 780M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 780M has 12 ray tracing cores. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The 780M has a TDP of 15 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU has better API support for graphics?

A: The 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear split. The AMD Instinct MI300X is for compute workloads where raw throughput matters above all else. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 317994, 100th percentile ranking, and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance place it in the top tier of accelerators. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 750 W power draw, all of which confirm it is not intended for desktop use. The 192 GB HBM3 memory and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth make it suited for large data sets and parallel processing tasks.

The AMD Radeon 780M is for systems that need integrated graphics with broad software compatibility. Its 61st percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 17588 put it in line with older discrete desktop GPUs like the Radeon Pro 560 and GeForce RTX 4060. It supports modern graphics APIs, has display outputs, and draws only 15 W. Its boost clock reaches 2900 MHz, which is higher than the MI300X’s 2100 MHz, but its shading unit count of 768 is a fraction of the MI300X’s 19456.

For a user running compute-heavy tasks, the MI300X is the only choice based on the recorded data. For a user building a low-power system with integrated graphics, the 780M is the functional option. They do not compete in the same market, and the benchmark results reflect that. The MI300X wins the single head-to-head test decisively, and the 780M wins in portability, power efficiency, and graphics feature support. Both are valid within their domains, but neither can substitute for the other.