AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon 860M Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI300X is a compute accelerator built for a completely different workload class than the AMD Radeon 860M. The data separates these two decisively: the MI300X scores 317994 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Radeon 860M scores 22759 in the same test, a 1297.2% advantage for the Instinct part. The MI300X sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the Radeon 860M lands at the 72nd percentile.

The MI300X is for anyone running large-scale compute tasks, AI training, or scientific simulation that needs enormous memory capacity and bandwidth. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA H200 NVL, which beats it by 5%, and the NVIDIA B200, which leads it by 8%, but the MI300X beats the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%. This places it firmly in the top tier of accelerators.

The Radeon 860M is an integrated GPU for mobile processors. Its OpenCL score of 22759 sits within a tight cluster: the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 0.1% higher, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 0.6% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 0.3% lower. The Radeon 860M also has a Vulkan score of 30043, which the MI300X lacks entirely since it exposes no graphics APIs. For a laptop user needing basic rendering, media acceleration, or light gaming, the Radeon 860M is the only one of the two that can display anything at all.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The Radeon 860M uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm TSMC process, with the Krackan Point chip. These are fundamentally different designs: CDNA is optimized for compute throughput with no display outputs, while RDNA is a graphics architecture with full API support.

The transistor counts tell the story. The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a density of 150.4M transistors per mm². The Radeon 860M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, so no direct comparison is possible there.

The MI300X uses HBM3 memory totaling 192 GB on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 860M uses system shared memory with a bus width and bandwidth that are system dependent. This memory difference alone explains the massive performance gap in compute workloads.

The MI300X has 19456 shading units and 1216 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs and zero pixel rate, confirming it has no rasterization hardware. The Radeon 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores, with a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s.

The MI300X supports no APIs: DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all listed as N/A. The Radeon 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X has no display outputs, while the Radeon 860M's outputs are portable device dependent.

The MI300X connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Radeon 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300X is an OAM module with a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Radeon 860M is an IGP with a 15 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317994 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 1297.2% higher than the Radeon 860M's 22759 in the same test.

Q: Can both GPUs render graphics?

A: No. The MI300X has no display outputs and lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Radeon 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with portable device dependent display outputs.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 860M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and bus width.

Q: What are their process nodes?

A: The MI300X is built on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Radeon 860M uses a 4 nm TSMC process.

Q: How does the Radeon 860M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: In the database, the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 0.1% higher, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 0.3% lower, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 0.6% higher, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 1.1% higher than the Radeon 860M.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Radeon 860M has a 15 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300X | AMD Radeon 860M |

|----------------|---------------------|------------------|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.5 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | unknown |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 600 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 3000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 512 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 32 |

| ROPs | 0 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | null | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 48.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 96.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 81.72 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2025-02-28 |

| Production Status | null | Active |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Navi II IGP |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The MI300X scores 317994 against the Radeon 860M's 22759, a delta of 1297.2% in favor of the Instinct part. This single data point shows a performance gap of more than an order of magnitude in raw compute throughput.

The MI300X's FP32 output of 81.72 TFLOPS against the Radeon 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS reinforces this gap, a factor of roughly 26.6 in raw floating-point capability. The texture rate difference is similarly extreme: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. The MI300X has zero pixel rate because it has no ROPs, while the Radeon 860M manages 48.00 GPixel/s.

The Radeon 860M does have one additional benchmark result that the MI300X lacks: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30043. This is higher than its own OpenCL score of 22759, indicating the Vulkan driver path extracts better performance from the hardware. The MI300X cannot be tested in Vulkan because it exposes no such API.

In the database's percentile rankings, the MI300X sits at 100th percentile, meaning it outperforms all other recorded GPUs. The Radeon 860M at 72nd percentile is a mid-pack performer among all GPUs, which is expected for an integrated part.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 317994 places it ahead of the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%. It trails only the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% and the NVIDIA B200 by 8% among its nearest rivals. This makes it a top-tier choice for compute-heavy workloads where the 192 GB HBM3 memory at 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is essential for holding large models or datasets.

The MI300X also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. The 192 GB pool dwarfs any integrated GPU's shared memory allocation, and the 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth provides the data movement necessary for sustained compute throughput. The 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU indicate this is a server or workstation component, not a consumer part.

The Radeon 860M wins in every area related to graphics output and accessibility. It has display outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 8 ray tracing cores. The MI300X has none of these features. The 860M's 15 W TDP fits into mobile platforms, whereas the MI300X requires the power delivery of a data center.

The Radeon 860M also wins on clock speed: its 3000 MHz boost clock exceeds the MI300X's 2100 MHz. This is irrelevant to absolute performance, as the MI300X's 19456 shading units versus 512 more than compensates, but it shows the integrated part is designed for efficiency within tight power envelopes.

For a laptop user, the Radeon 860M's Vulkan score of 30043 indicates it can handle modern graphics workloads at playable levels. The MI300X cannot display anything at all. For anyone running AI inference, scientific simulation, or large-scale data processing, the MI300X's 1297.2% OpenCL advantage over the 860M makes the choice obvious. These two parts do not compete; they serve entirely different markets.