AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single direct comparison between these two AMD accelerators: the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. In this test, the AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 points, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 scores 81,528 points. The delta is 290%, meaning the Instinct MI300X delivers roughly four times the raw compute throughput of the W7600 in this workload. This is not a marginal gap; it is a categorical difference in performance class.

To contextualize the MI300X result, the database places it at the 100th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482 points, the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 points, the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 points, and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation at 287,237 points. The MI300X sits 8% behind the B200 and 5% behind the H200 NVL, but it is 7.5% ahead of the L40S and 10.7% ahead of the RTX 6000 Ada Generation. In other words, the MI300X is not merely a high-end part; it occupies the top tier of the entire database, trading blows with the most powerful NVIDIA accelerators currently recorded.

The W7600, by contrast, sits at the 93rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 at 87,445 points, the NVIDIA CMP 40HX at 85,637 points, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile at 91,134 points, and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 at 91,671 points. The W7600 trails the RTX A4500 by 5% and the RTX A4500 Mobile by 4.4%, while edging out the Quadro GP100 by 0.4% and the CMP 40HX by 1.7%. This places the W7600 in the upper-midrange tier of workstation GPUs, competitive with older and mobile NVIDIA professional parts, but nowhere near the absolute top of the database.

The head-to-head delta of 290% is the largest recorded gap between these two products across any shared benchmark. The MI300X wins the only test both products appear in, so the win tally stands at 1 for the Instinct and 0 for the W7600. No other benchmark results are shared between the two in the database, which means conclusions must be drawn from this single OpenCL data point plus the architectural and specification differences recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 317,994 is nearly four times the W7600's 81,528. This makes it the clear choice for workloads that scale with massive parallel compute, such as large-scale AI training, scientific simulation, or data center inference. The MI300X also records a 100th percentile ranking, meaning it outperforms or matches every other GPU in the database on this metric. No other product in the entire database scores higher than 345,482, and the MI300X is within 8% of that top mark.

The W7600 wins in efficiency-oriented deployment scenarios, though the database does not provide a direct performance-per-watt benchmark. Its recorded power draw is 130 W versus 750 W for the MI300X, and its suggested power supply is 300 W versus 1150 W. It also has display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1, whereas the MI300X has no outputs at all. The W7600 is a single-slot card with a 6-pin power connector, while the MI300X is an OAM module with no power connectors listed. For desktop workstations, visualization, or any workflow requiring a physical display connection, the W7600 is the only one of the two that can drive a monitor directly.

The W7600 also supports a full API stack: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists N/A for all three APIs. This indicates the W7600 is designed for interactive graphics and general-purpose workstation use, while the MI300X is a compute accelerator without graphics API support. In terms of memory, the MI300X offers 192 GB of HBM3 with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the W7600 offers 8 GB of GDDR6 with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300X has a 8192-bit memory bus; the W7600 has a 128-bit bus. For datasets exceeding 8 GB, the MI300X is the only viable option.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different AMD architectures. The MI300X uses CDNA 3.0, built on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the W7600 uses RDNA 3.0, built on a 6 nm TSMC process. The chip names differ as well: the MI300X is codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, and the W7600 is codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, with the latter belonging to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

Transistor counts reveal the scale difference. The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The W7600 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2 million per mm². The MI300X has roughly 11.5 times the transistor count and a die roughly 5 times larger. The density gap (150.4 vs 65.2 million per mm²) reflects the newer 5 nm process and the different design priorities of a data center compute chip versus a workstation graphics chip.

Compute units differ sharply. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, as it is not a rasterization device. The W7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 156.2 GPixel/s. The MI300X's texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s for the W7600. Floating point performance: the MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 and 39.98 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed; the W7600 has 32.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI300X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, with memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The W7600 runs at 1720 MHz base and 2440 MHz boost, with memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Despite lower clocks, the MI300X achieves far higher throughput because of its massive parallel width and HBM3 memory subsystem.

The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300X is an OAM module with no display outputs and no power connectors; the W7600 is a single-slot card with 1x 6-pin power and 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The W7600 measures 241 mm in length and 115 mm in height. The MI300X has no recorded dimensions. The MI300X was released on 2023-12-05, and the W7600 on 2023-08-02.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 81,528 for the Radeon PRO W7600, a 290% advantage for the MI300X.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI300X drive a display?

A: No. The MI300X has no display outputs. The W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300X lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do these cards compare to NVIDIA rivals?

A: The MI300X is 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S, 10.7% ahead of the RTX 6000 Ada Generation, 5% behind the H200 NVL, and 8% behind the B200. The W7600 is 0.4% ahead of the Quadro GP100, 1.7% ahead of the CMP 40HX, 4.4% behind the RTX A4500 Mobile, and 5% behind the RTX A4500.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 1150 W. The W7600 has a 130 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 300 W.

Q: Which architecture does each use?

A: The MI300X uses CDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm TSMC process. The W7600 uses RDNA 3.0 on a 6 nm TSMC process.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by workload. The AMD Instinct MI300X is the choice for compute-heavy, data center scale tasks. It sits at the 100th percentile in the database, delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, and provides 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA B200, H200 NVL, L40S, and RTX 6000 Ada Generation, all of which it either beats or trails by single-digit percentages. Any workload that needs maximum OpenCL throughput, massive memory capacity, or PCIe 5.0 connectivity points to the MI300X.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the choice for workstation graphics and display-driven tasks. It is the only one of the two with display outputs, graphics API support, ray tracing cores, and a rasterization pipeline. Its 130 W power draw and 300 W suggested power supply make it far easier to integrate into a desktop system. Its OpenCL score of 81,528 places it near the NVIDIA RTX A4500, RTX A4500 Mobile, Quadro GP100, and CMP 40HX, meaning it competes with midrange professional GPUs. The 93rd percentile ranking confirms it is above average but not top-tier.

There is no scenario in the recorded data where the W7600 outperforms the MI300X on raw compute. There is equally no scenario in the recorded data where the MI300X can replace the W7600 for display output or graphics API workloads. The two products are not direct competitors; they are complementary tools for different segments. The MI300X is an OAM module with no outputs and a 750 W TDP, designed for server racks. The W7600 is a single-slot desktop card with a 6-pin connector, designed for professional workstations.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300X | AMD Radeon PRO W7600 |

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

| 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 | 1720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2440 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 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 | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 128 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | N/A | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 156.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 312.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 19.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 300 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 |

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

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | 599 USD |