AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data positions the AMD Instinct MI300X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum. The MI300X is a data center compute accelerator with a single Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The W7400, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of zero, and sits at the 50th percentile. The MI300X wins the only measurable compute benchmark outright; the W7400 has no recorded wins in any test.

The use-case split is defined by form factor, memory, and output capabilities. The MI300X carries 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, operates as an OAM module, and provides no display outputs. This configuration targets server-side acceleration, large model inference, and high-throughput compute workloads. The W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, a single-slot profile measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, and runs on a 55 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 250 W. That profile supports workstation graphics, visualization, and multi-display professional environments. The MI300X requires a 1150 W suggested power supply and uses no power connectors, consistent with an OAM module powered through its host system.

The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 (1:1) compute, along with a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 (1:1) and a texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s. The MI300X has no pixel rate (0 MPixel/s) and zero ROPs, while the W7400 has a 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 64 ROPs. This confirms the MI300X forfeits all rasterization-oriented capability in exchange for raw compute throughput, while the W7400 retains a full graphics pipeline.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher recorded benchmark score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

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

A: The MI300X sits 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S, 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation, 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL, and 8% behind the NVIDIA B200.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support display outputs?

A: No. The MI300X has no display outputs. The W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: What is the difference in power requirements?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 1150 W. The W7400 has a 55 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 250 W.

Q: Which card supports newer PCIe?

A: The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two cards. However, the MI300X has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, while the W7400 has no recorded scores at all. The MI300X therefore holds a complete, undefeated advantage in the only available compute measurement.

The MI300X's percentile placement reinforces this gap. At the 100th percentile of all GPUs, it outperforms the vast majority of recorded hardware. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482 (8% ahead), the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 (5% ahead), the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 (7.5% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation at 287,237 (10.7% behind). The W7400 sits at the 50th percentile with no rivals listed, indicating no comparable measured performance data exists for it.

The FP32 compute figures further illustrate the divide. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, approximately 10.4 times the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. The texture rate comparison shows the MI300X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s for the W7400. Memory bandwidth favors the MI300X even more decisively: 5.32 TB/s versus 172.8 GB/s, a ratio of roughly 30.8 to 1. The W7400 counters only in pixel throughput, where it produces 70.40 GPixel/s against the MI300X's 0 MPixel/s, and in display connectivity, where the MI300X offers none.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field. The MI300X uses a 5 nm process node, while the W7400 uses a 6 nm node. Both are fabricated by TSMC. Transistor counts differ substantially: the MI300X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the W7400 integrates 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI300X and 65.2M per mm² for the W7400.

Clock behavior differs in both base and boost values. The MI300X runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and 2100 MHz boost. The W7400 runs at a 330 MHz base clock and 1100 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the MI300X uses 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the W7400 uses 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective.

The memory subsystem is the largest divergence. The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. Shader and texture resources also diverge: the MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, versus 1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs for the W7400. The MI300X has zero ROPs; the W7400 has 64. The W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores; the MI300X lists none.

Power and physical specifications differ sharply. The MI300X has a 750 W TDP, a suggested power supply of 1150 W, and an OAM module slot width. The W7400 has a 55 W TDP, a suggested power supply of 250 W, and a single-slot profile. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Neither card uses power connectors. The MI300X has no display outputs; the W7400 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI300X lists no dimensions; the W7400 measures 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm.

API support also separates the two. The MI300X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation. The W7400 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The MI300X's predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct; the W7400's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega.

The process node difference (5 nm versus 6 nm) and die size difference (1017 mm² versus 204 mm²) reflect fundamentally different design goals. The MI300X is built for maximum compute density, with 153,000 million transistors and a 150.4M per mm² density. The W7400 is built for efficiency and workstation integration, with 13,300 million transistors and a 65.2M per mm² density.

The MI300X has no ray tracing cores, no ROPs, and no display or graphics API support. Its architecture is compute-oriented, emphasizing FP32 and FP16 throughput at 81.72 TFLOPS each. The W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores, 64 ROPs, and full graphics API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7400's pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s confirms an active rasterization pipeline, while the MI300X's 0 MPixel/s confirms none.

Memory architecture also differs. The MI300X uses HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus, reaching 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The W7400 uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus, reaching 172.8 GB/s. The MI300X's release date is recorded as 2023-12-05, while the W7400's release date is 2025-08-02. The W7400 is listed as Active in production status; the MI300X has no production status listed.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a high-throughput compute accelerator with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, placing it at the 100th percentile. It delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, 192 GB of HBM3 memory, and 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no rasterization hardware. It is designed for environments that prioritize raw compute, large memory capacity, and high memory bandwidth over any form of visual output.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a workstation graphics card with no recorded compute benchmark scores. It provides 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32, 64 ROPs, 28 ray tracing cores, and 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it operates within a 55 W TDP. Its 168 mm length, single-slot width, and 250 W suggested power supply make it suitable for compact professional workstations.

Users with compute-heavy workloads should select the MI300X, as it holds the only recorded benchmark score and outperforms several NVIDIA data center parts in the database, including the L40S by 7.5% and the RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%. Users requiring graphics output, display connectivity, or ray tracing should select the W7400, as the MI300X cannot produce a pixel or render an image. The W7400 is the only one of the two with any display outputs, graphics API support, or pixel rate. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload demands compute throughput or graphical output; no single card satisfies both.