AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains a single directly comparable test between these two accelerators: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317994, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 scores 58213. That translates to a 446.3% advantage for the MI300X, making the gap massive and effectively decisive in raw compute throughput.

Contextualizing the MI300X against its nearest rivals reinforces its position. The database places the MI300X at the 100th percentile among all GPUs, meaning no recorded accelerator scores higher in the aggregate benchmark ranking. Its average benchmark score of 317994 sits 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334891), 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S (295763), 8% behind the NVIDIA B200 (345482), and 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287237). These deltas illustrate that while the MI300X is not the single fastest accelerator in every configuration, it sits within a tight band of top-tier data center parts, trading blows with the H200 and B200 while clearly outpacing the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada.

The Radeon PRO W7500, by contrast, holds the 59th percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 16415, which is effectively tied with several near neighbors. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell scores 16408 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 16361 (0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 16351 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16504 (0.5% ahead). These are all within a fraction of a percent, indicating that the W7500's aggregate compute performance lands in a crowded mid-range cluster rather than at either extreme.

The single head-to-head OpenCL result shows a 446.3% win for the MI300X. That is not a marginal difference; it is a multiple of performance. In practical terms, workloads that scale with raw FP32 or FP16 throughput will see the MI300X complete the same OpenCL compute task in roughly one-fifth of the time, assuming memory bandwidth and capacity do not become additional bottlenecks. The W7500's other benchmark scores, such as Passmark G3D at 13368 and Passmark GPU Compute at 5910, are not directly comparable to the MI300X because the MI300X lacks equivalent entries in the database. The only shared metric is Geekbench OpenCL, and that metric heavily favors the data center part.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins in every direct compute comparison available. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio) dwarf the W7500's 12.19 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.37 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). For FP32 workloads, the MI300X delivers roughly 6.7 times the raw throughput. For FP16, the gap narrows somewhat because the W7500 uses a 2:1 rate, but the MI300X still maintains a commanding lead due to its sheer scale.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also separate the two decisively. The MI300X carries 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s. That is a 20.8 times bandwidth advantage for the MI300X and a 24 times capacity advantage. Workloads that fit within 8 GB, such as moderate rendering scenes or smaller inference batches, can run on the W7500. Workloads that require large model weights, massive datasets, or high-bandwidth streaming will only fit on the MI300X.

The W7500 does claim wins in areas the MI300X cannot touch. It has display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI300X has no display outputs at all. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists N/A for all three APIs. The W7500 also has 28 ray accelerators, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing, while the MI300X reports no RT cores. For interactive graphics, workstation visualization, or any workload requiring a monitor connection, the W7500 is the only functional choice between these two. The MI300X is a compute accelerator, not a graphics card.

Pixel rate tells a similar story. The W7500 delivers 108.8 GPixel/s with 64 ROPs, while the MI300X reports 0 MPixel/s and 0 ROPs. The MI300X is not designed to rasterize frames. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s far exceeds the W7500's 190.4 GTexel/s, but that metric matters less when the MI300X cannot output pixels to a display.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architectural families within AMD. The MI300X uses CDNA 3.0, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. The chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. Transistor density reaches 150.4M per mm². The W7500 uses RDNA 3.0, built on TSMC's 6 nm process. Its chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, integrates 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2M per mm². The MI300X is a massive compute-oriented die; the W7500 is a compact workstation die.

The compute unit hierarchy differs as well. The MI300X has 19456 shading units, 1216 TMUs, and no ROPs. The W7500 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI300X's shading unit count is nearly 11 times higher, but the absence of ROPs confirms its role as a pure compute device. The W7500's 28 ray accelerators add hardware ray tracing support, a feature entirely absent from the MI300X's specification sheet.

Memory architectures diverge completely. The MI300X uses HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The W7500 uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. Clock behavior also differs. The MI300X runs a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, with memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The W7500 runs a 1500 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The W7500 has a higher base clock, but the MI300X has a higher boost clock and far wider memory interface.

Power and physical design reflect their intended environments. The MI300X has a 750 W TDP, requires a suggested 1150 W PSU, and mounts as an OAM Module with no power connectors listed and no display outputs. The W7500 has a 70 W TDP, requires a suggested 250 W PSU, and fits in a single-slot, 216 mm by 115 mm by 20 mm frame with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The MI300X is a server accelerator; the W7500 is a workstation or desktop card.

The bus interfaces also differ. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The newer, wider interface on the MI300X suits high-throughput data movement, though the W7500's narrower interface is adequate for its lower bandwidth needs. The W7500's production status is listed as Active; the MI300X's production status is not recorded. Release dates place the MI300X at 2023-12-05 and the W7500 at 2023-08-02, with the W7500 launching first.

The Verdict

The data splits cleanly by workload class. The AMD Instinct MI300X is the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks that fit on a server accelerator: large-scale FP32 or FP16 matrix operations, high-bandwidth memory access patterns, and workloads requiring 192 GB of capacity. Its 446.3% OpenCL lead over the W7500, combined with its 100th percentile ranking and competitive positioning against the NVIDIA H200 NVL, B200, L40S, and RTX 6000 Ada, places it firmly in the top tier of accelerators in the database. If the task involves training or inference on large models, scientific computing, or any operation that can use 5.32 TB/s of memory bandwidth, the MI300X is the only sensible pick between these two.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the choice for interactive graphics, ray tracing, and any workflow that requires a display connection. It is the only one of the two with display outputs, graphics APIs, and pixel rendering capability. Its 28 ray accelerators and 108.8 GPixel/s pixel rate make it suitable for workstation visualization, while its 70 W TDP and single-slot footprint allow deployment in compact systems. Its aggregate benchmark score of 16415 places it in the mid-range cluster, competitive with the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell and RX 5700 XT, but it is not in the same performance class as the MI300X for raw compute.

No scenario in the recorded data favors the W7500 for compute throughput. No scenario in the recorded data favors the MI300X for graphics output. Users needing both would require two separate devices. The MI300X's launch MSRP is not recorded; the W7500's launch MSRP is 429 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317994, which is 446.3% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7500's score of 58213.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI300X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI300X has no display outputs and reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support. The Radeon PRO W7500 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The MI300X provides 5.32 TB/s from 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus. The W7500 provides 256.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the FP32 throughput difference?

A: The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the W7500 delivers 12.19 TFLOPS FP32. The MI300X also delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the W7500 delivers 24.37 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Q: Does the Radeon PRO W7500 support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes. The W7500 has 28 ray accelerators. The MI300X lists no RT cores.

Q: Which GPU sits higher in the overall performance percentile ranking?

A: The MI300X ranks at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The W7500 ranks at the 59th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300X | AMD Radeon PRO W7500 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 112 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| Ray Accelerators | None listed | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 108.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 190.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 12.19 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 216 mm x 115 mm x 20 mm |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2023-08-02 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 429 USD |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |