AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single common benchmark between these two AMD accelerators: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Instinct MI300X posts a score of 317,994, while the AMD Radeon RX 6550M scores 42,536. That is a delta of 647.6% in favor of the MI300X, a massive performance gap that reflects their entirely different market positions. The MI300X also holds a 100th percentile rank among all GPUs in the database, while the RX 6550M sits at the 85th percentile. In absolute terms, the MI300X delivers roughly 7.5 times the OpenCL compute throughput of the RX 6550M.

The MI300X’s nearest rivals in the database illustrate where it sits in the compute hierarchy. It trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% (average score 334,891) and the NVIDIA B200 by 8% (345,482). Against the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) it is ahead by 7.5%, and versus the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237) it leads by 10.7%. These deltas show the MI300X operating squarely in the upper tier of data-center accelerators, with performance within single-digit percentage points of the top NVIDIA offerings. The RX 6550M, by contrast, competes in the mobile graphics segment. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the Intel Arc A530M scores 46,614 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 46,601 (0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 scores 46,043 (1.4% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation scores 45,972 (1.6% behind). The RX 6550M’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 46,702, meaning it is essentially tied with its closest competitors in this segment.

No other head-to-head tests are recorded in the database, so the OpenCL result stands as the only direct comparison. The MI300X wins the single recorded head-to-head matchup; the RX 6550M has zero wins. This lopsided outcome is expected given the architectural gulf between a 750 W OAM accelerator and an 80 W mobile IGP.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, built for data-center compute, while the RX 6550M uses RDNA 2.0, designed for graphics and gaming. The MI300X’s chip is named Aqua Vanjaram and is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, containing 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 150.4M per mm². The RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip on a 6 nm TSMC process, with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, giving a density of 50.5M per mm². The MI300X therefore has roughly 28 times the transistor count and a die area nearly ten times larger, while also achieving a higher packing density.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no raster operation pipelines (0 ROPs, yielding 0 MPixel/s pixel rate). The RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 90.88 GPixel/s. Texture rate stands at 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI300X versus 181.8 GTexel/s for the RX 6550M. Floating-point throughput: the MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS for FP32 and the same 81.72 TFLOPS for FP16 (1:1 ratio), whereas the RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.63 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The MI300X is roughly 14 times faster in FP32 and 7 times faster in FP16.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. Memory clock is listed at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. The RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s, with a memory clock of 2250 MHz and 18 Gbps effective. The MI300X has 37 times the bandwidth and 48 times the capacity. The RX 6550M does include 16 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the MI300X’s compute-focused design. Neither part lists tensor cores.

The MI300X exposes no display outputs and no graphics APIs (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan all listed as N/A). The RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with display outputs marked as portable device dependent. The bus interfaces differ as well: the MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Power delivery: the MI300X has a TDP of 750 W with no power connectors (OAM module design) and a suggested PSU of 1150 W; the RX 6550M has an 80 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed. The MI300X is an OAM module, the RX 6550M an IGP.

Clock speeds show the mobile part running higher. The RX 6550M has a base clock of 2000 MHz, a boost of 2840 MHz, and a game clock of 2560 MHz. The MI300X has a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the MI300X’s massive shader count and memory bandwidth overwhelm the RX 6550M in compute workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon RX 6550M scores 42,536. The MI300X leads by 647.6%.

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

A: The MI300X trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% and the NVIDIA B200 by 8%, but leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%.

Q: What memory configurations do these two GPUs use?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RX 6550M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RX 6550M includes 16 ray tracing cores. The MI300X does not list any ray tracing cores, consistent with its compute-focused CDNA 3.0 architecture.

Q: What are the TDP values for each GPU?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W, while the RX 6550M has a TDP of 80 W. The MI300X also lists a suggested PSU of 1150 W; the RX 6550M has no suggested PSU value.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 6550M has a pixel rate of 90.88 GPixel/s. The MI300X has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, as it contains no ROPs.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ.

| Field | AMD Instinct MI300X | AMD Radeon RX 6550M |

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

| Series | None listed | Radeon RX 6000 series |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Navi 24 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 5,400 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2840 MHz |

| Game Clock | None listed | 2560 MHz |

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

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 144.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 64 |

| ROPs | 0 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None listed | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 90.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 181.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 5.816 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 80 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | IGP |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | None listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Production Status | None listed | Active |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2023-01-03 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Polaris Mobile |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 317994 | 42536 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | Not recorded | 50867 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 317994 | 46702 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 100 | 85 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins decisively in every compute-oriented metric recorded in the database. It is 647.6% ahead in OpenCL performance. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS dwarfs the RX 6550M’s 5.816 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output of 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) exceeds the RX 6550M’s 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1). Memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s versus 144.0 GB/s makes the MI300X suited for large-scale matrix operations, training workloads, and memory-bound inference. The 192 GB capacity allows it to hold far larger datasets in fast HBM3 memory than the 4 GB GDDR6 buffer of the RX 6550M. Its 100th percentile rank confirms that the database places it at the very top of all recorded GPUs.

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M wins in areas tied to graphics and mobility. It has 32 ROPs and a pixel rate of 90.88 GPixel/s, whereas the MI300X has none. It includes 16 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a capability the MI300X does not list. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300X lists no graphics APIs. The RX 6550M also has a higher boost clock (2840 MHz vs 2100 MHz) and a higher base clock (2000 MHz vs 1000 MHz), which benefits latency-sensitive graphics workloads. It is an IGP with an 80 W TDP, making it suitable for portable devices, while the MI300X is an OAM module with a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RX 6550M’s 85th percentile rank puts it above most GPUs in the database, and its average benchmark score of 46,702 places it in a tight pack with the Intel Arc A530M, AMD Radeon RX 5600M, NVIDIA RTX A2000, and NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation, all within 1.6% of each other.

The data supports a clear split: the MI300X is designed for data-center compute where raw throughput, memory capacity, and bandwidth dominate. The RX 6550M is designed for mobile graphics where rasterization, ray tracing, API compatibility, and power efficiency matter. Neither part is a substitute for the other. The MI300X wins the only recorded benchmark, but the RX 6550M holds the only ray tracing and graphics API support, along with a far lower power envelope and a smaller physical footprint.