AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 Comparison

The AMD Instinct MI300X and AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 represent two distinct eras of AMD’s data center GPU strategy. The MI300X is a CDNA 3.0 behemoth built for modern AI and HPC workloads, while the MI60 is a GCN 5.1 legacy part from 2018. The database records a single head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, where the MI300X scores 317,994 against the MI60’s 92,488. That is a 243.8% advantage for the newer card. This delta is massive, but the story is more nuanced when examining each card’s position within its own competitive set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The MI300X delivers 317,994 points, while the MI60 manages 92,488. The MI300X is 243.8% faster in this single workload. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap. The MI300X’s score places it at the 100th percentile among all GPUs tracked, meaning it outperforms every other recorded device. The MI60, by contrast, sits at the 93rd percentile, which is still strong but clearly a tier below.

Looking at rival comparisons, the MI300X is 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) and 8% behind the NVIDIA B200 (345,482). It leads the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237) by 10.7%. These deltas show the MI300X is not the absolute fastest accelerator in the database, but it is within striking distance of the top NVIDIA parts and comfortably ahead of the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada. The MI60, however, faces a different competitive landscape. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A4500, which scores 91,671, a mere 0.9% behind the MI60’s 92,488. The RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134) is 1.5% behind, while the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131) is 4.8% ahead and the AMD Radeon RX 7900M (97,487) is 5.2% ahead. The MI60 is essentially tied with the RTX A4500, but it loses ground to newer AMD parts.

The OpenCL delta of 243.8% is the headline number. It reflects not just a clock speed difference but a complete architectural overhaul. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units versus 4,096 on the MI60, and its FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 14.75 TFLOPS. In raw compute, the MI300X is 5.5 times faster on paper, and the benchmark confirms a similar scaling. The MI60’s FP16 performance is 29.49 TFLOPS (with a 2:1 ratio), while the MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS in FP16 (1:1). That is a 2.77x FP16 advantage, though the OpenCL test primarily stresses FP32. The texture rate also tells the story: the MI300X produces 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 460.8 GTexel/s on the MI60. The pixel rate is a different matter, as the MI300X reports 0 MPixel/s due to its lack of ROPs, while the MI60 has 64 ROPs and a 115.2 GPixel/s rate.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the MI300X is the superior performer for any compute-heavy task. Its 243.8% lead in OpenCL, combined with its 100th percentile ranking, makes it the clear choice for AI training, large-scale inference, or scientific simulations. The MI300X also offers 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, versus 32 GB of HBM2 at 1.02 TB/s on the MI60. That six-fold memory capacity and five-fold bandwidth advantage is critical for workloads that exceed the MI60’s 32 GB limit. The MI60, however, still has a role. Its 93rd percentile ranking and near-tie with the RTX A4500 show it remains competitive for lighter inference or mixed-precision tasks, but it is end-of-life and lacks the headroom for modern large models.

For a buyer with an existing MI60 deployment, the upgrade path to the MI300X is drastic but justified if performance is the priority. The MI60’s 300 W TDP is lower than the MI300X’s 750 W, but the power-per-performance tradeoff favors the newer card. The MI300X requires a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the MI60 needs 700 W. The MI300X is an OAM module with no display outputs, whereas the MI60 is a dual-slot PCIe card with one mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. This means the MI60 can serve in edge cases where video output is needed, but the MI300X is purely a compute accelerator.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the MI60 is built on GCN 5.1. This is a fundamental split. CDNA 3.0 is designed specifically for data center compute, with a focus on matrix operations and memory bandwidth. GCN 5.1 is an older graphics-oriented architecture that also supported compute but lacked the specialized tensor or matrix cores found in later designs. The MI300X’s chip is codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The MI60 uses the Vega 20 chip on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC, with 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die and a density of 40.0M per mm². The process node difference alone, 5 nm versus 7 nm, explains part of the efficiency gap, but the die size difference is staggering: the MI300X is three times larger.

The MI300X has no ROPs, which is unusual, but it is not meant for rasterization. It has 1,216 TMUs and 19,456 shading units. The MI60 has 256 TMUs and 64 ROPs, reflecting its dual-purpose heritage. The MI300X’s memory interface is 8192 bits wide, compared to 4096 bits on the MI60, and it uses HBM3 instead of HBM2. The clock speeds also differ: the MI300X runs at a base of 1000 MHz and boosts to 2100 MHz, while the MI60 has a higher base of 1200 MHz but a lower boost of 1800 MHz. This means the MI60 starts faster but cannot sustain the same peak as the MI300X. The MI300X’s memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) on the MI60.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights the key fields where the two cards diverge. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W, while the MI60 draws 300 W. The MI300X uses an OAM module slot width with no power connectors, relying on the carrier board, while the MI60 is dual-slot and requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 on the MI300X versus PCIe 4.0 x16 on the MI60. Display outputs are absent on the MI300X, but the MI60 has one mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The MI60 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the MI300X reports N/A for all three APIs, confirming its compute-only nature.

Memory size is 192 GB versus 32 GB, and the memory type is HBM3 versus HBM2. The MI300X’s shading units are 19,456 versus 4,096, and its texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 460.8 GTexel/s. The MI300X’s FP32 is 81.72 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is also 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1), while the MI60’s FP32 is 14.75 TFLOPS and FP16 is 29.49 TFLOPS (2:1). The MI300X has no pixel rate, but the MI60 produces 115.2 GPixel/s. The release dates are 2023-12-05 for the MI300X and 2018-11-17 for the MI60. The MI60 is marked as end-of-life, while the MI300X has no production status listed. The MI300X’s predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the MI60’s predecessor is FirePro Data Center, showing the product line evolution.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 scores 92,488, giving the MI300X a 243.8% lead.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to the NVIDIA H200 NVL?

A: The MI300X is 5% behind the H200 NVL, which has an average score of 334,891.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory, while the MI60 has 32 GB of HBM2 memory.

Q: Does the MI60 support display outputs?

A: Yes, the MI60 has one mini-DisplayPort 1.4a output, while the MI300X has no display outputs.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W, and the MI60 has a TDP of 300 W.

Q: Is the MI60 still a competitive option?

A: The MI60 ranks at the 93rd percentile, and its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A4500, is only 0.9% behind, so it remains viable for older workloads, but it is end-of-life and far behind the MI300X.