AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7700, and the result is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 points against 108,245 points for the Radeon PRO W7700. That is a delta of 193.8%, meaning the Instinct MI300X delivers nearly three times the raw compute throughput in this workload.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces how lopsided this matchup is. The Instinct MI300X sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with its average benchmark score of 317,994 placing it ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7% and the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5%. It trails only the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% and the NVIDIA B200 by 8% in this specific test. The Radeon PRO W7700, meanwhile, lands at the 95th percentile with an average score of 118,976. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GB10, is essentially neck-and-neck at 117,393 points, a 1.3% gap. The W7700 edges out the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6%, the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 4%, and the RTX A5500 Mobile by 4.4%.

The head-to-head delta of 193.8% is the single largest margin recorded between these two cards. The Instinct MI300X does not merely win; it overwhelms the W7700 in OpenCL compute. For any workload that relies on this API, the choice is unambiguous from a performance standpoint.

Where Each One Wins

The Instinct MI300X wins the only recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 193.8% advantage. This is a compute-oriented accelerator built for massive parallel workloads. Its shading unit count of 19,456 dwarfs the W7700's 3,072, and its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is over five times the W7700's 499.2 GTexel/s. The MI300X also posts 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, more than double the W7700's 31.95 TFLOPS. In FP16, the MI300X again delivers 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the W7700 reaches 63.90 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the MI300X's FP16 throughput is also higher even before considering the ratio advantage.

The Radeon PRO W7700 wins in areas the benchmark does not capture. It has 96 ROPs against the MI300X's 0, giving it a pixel rate of 249.6 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s. It also includes 48 ray accelerators, where the MI300X lists none. The W7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300X reports no API support for any of those. The W7700 is a dual-slot card with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it a functional workstation GPU for rendering, display, and interactive workloads. The MI300X is an OAM module with no display outputs at all.

The split is clean. The MI300X is for compute density and raw throughput. The W7700 is for graphics, visualization, and API-compatible workloads where display and rasterization matter.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, which is 193.8% higher than the Radeon PRO W7700's 108,245.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Instinct MI300X is ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7% and the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5%, while trailing the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% and the NVIDIA B200 by 8%. The Radeon PRO W7700 leads the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3%, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6%, the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 4%, and the RTX A5500 Mobile by 4.4%.

Q: Does the Radeon PRO W7700 support any APIs that the Instinct MI300X does not?

A: Yes. The W7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: Can the Instinct MI300X output video to displays?

A: No. The MI300X has no display outputs, while the Radeon PRO W7700 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 connections.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Instinct MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Instinct MI300X has 19,456 shading units, compared to 3,072 on the Radeon PRO W7700.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category recorded in the database.

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300X | AMD Radeon PRO W7700 |

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

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Navi 32 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Codename | None listed | Wheat Nas |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 28,100 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 346 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 81.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2600 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19,456 | 3,072 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 192 |

| ROPs | 0 | 96 |

| RT Cores | None listed | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 249.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 499.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 31.95 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 190 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 450 W |

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

| 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 |

| Length | Not listed | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2023-11-12 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 999 USD |

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The Instinct MI300X uses CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-focused architecture designed for accelerators. The Radeon PRO W7700 uses RDNA 3.0, the graphics-oriented architecture found in AMD's consumer and workstation GPUs.

Both chips are fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, but the similarity ends there. The MI300X's Aqua Vanjaram die packs 153,000 million transistors across 1017 mm², yielding a density of 150.4M transistors per mm². The W7700's Navi 32 die contains 28,100 million transistors on 346 mm², for a density of 81.2M per mm². The MI300X is a massive multi-die accelerator, while the W7700 is a conventional monolithic GPU.

Memory architecture reflects the different missions. The MI300X uses HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus, achieving 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth across 192 GB of capacity. The W7700 uses GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth and 16 GB capacity. The MI300X is built for memory-bound compute workloads where capacity and bandwidth dominate. The W7700 is built for conventional graphics workloads where 16 GB is sufficient for most professional tasks.

Compute feature sets also diverge. The MI300X lists no ray tracing cores and no ROPs, reinforcing its role as a pure compute device. The W7700 includes 48 ray accelerators and 96 ROPs, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and rasterization. The MI300X also lacks any display outputs, while the W7700 drives up to four DisplayPort 2.1 monitors. API support follows the same pattern: the MI300X reports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, while the W7700 is fully compliant with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock behavior differs as well. The W7700 runs at a higher base clock of 1900 MHz and boosts to 2600 MHz, reflecting its graphics-oriented design where higher clocks benefit interactive workloads. The MI300X sits at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, prioritizing stability and throughput over clock speed. Power draw scales with capability: the MI300X has a 750 W TDP and requires a 1150 W suggested PSU, while the W7700 has a 190 W TDP and needs only a 450 W PSU.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. The AMD Instinct MI300X is the choice for compute-heavy workloads that demand maximum OpenCL throughput, massive memory capacity, and extreme bandwidth. Its 193.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with 192 GB of HBM3 memory and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, makes it a dedicated accelerator for large-scale compute tasks. The 100th percentile ranking places it at the top of the database, ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7% and the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5%. Anyone running large batch processing, AI inference, or scientific simulations should select the MI300X without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is the choice for professional graphics work. It offers 249.6 GPixel/s pixel throughput, 48 ray accelerators, and full API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs allow multi-monitor setups, and its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while far smaller than the MI300X's 192 GB, is adequate for many workstation tasks. The 95th percentile ranking places it above the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3% and the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6%. It is also dramatically more practical for a desktop workstation, with a 190 W TDP, dual-slot form factor, and a single 8-pin power connector.

The choice is not about which GPU is "better" in an absolute sense. It is about matching the hardware to the workload. The MI300X is a server-grade compute accelerator with no display outputs. The W7700 is a workstation graphics card with robust display and rendering capabilities. For compute density, the MI300X wins every recorded metric. For graphics, display output, and API compatibility, the W7700 is the only option of the two. The launch MSRP of the W7700 is 999 USD, while the MI300X has no listed launch MSRP, which further reflects their different market positions. Neither card is a substitute for the other.