AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon RX 7400 Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300X is an accelerator built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, designed for compute workloads, while AMD Radeon RX 7400 is a graphics card from the Radeon RX 7000 series, based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, intended for rendering. The database records a single OpenCL benchmark for the MI300X and several DirectX and Passmark tests for the RX 7400. Direct comparisons are limited because the two products do not share any common benchmark tests in the recorded data. The analysis below relies on their respective architectural specifications and their individual benchmark scores relative to their own nearest rivals.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X excels in high-throughput compute environments. Its recorded Geekbench OpenCL score is 317,994, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. This score positions it 7.5% above the NVIDIA L40S and 10.7% above the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation. It trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% and the NVIDIA B200 by 8%. These results indicate the MI300X is a top-tier accelerator for parallel processing tasks, likely suited for AI training, scientific simulations, and large-scale data analytics where raw compute power is paramount.

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 wins in the domain of conventional graphics and consumer-level compute. Its benchmark results include a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1103, a Passmark G3D score of 11897, and a Passmark G2D score of 1209. Its strongest individual result is in the Passmark DirectX 9 test, where it scores 176, which is significantly higher than its DirectX 12 score of 44. This suggests a particular strength in legacy DirectX 9 workloads. In compute tasks, its Passmark GPU Compute score is 5152. The RX 7400 sits in the 17th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2467. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 8040S (1.1% higher), NVIDIA GeForce 710M (1.4% higher), Intel HD Graphics 610 (1.8% higher), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M (1.9% higher). This places it in the entry-level performance tier, suitable for basic gaming, desktop acceleration, and light compute tasks.

The data shows a clear split: the MI300X is for high-end, non-rendering compute, while the RX 7400 is for mainstream graphics output. The MI300X has no display outputs, confirming its role as a compute accelerator. The RX 7400, in contrast, includes outputs such as 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, confirming its role as a graphics card for direct display connection.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different microarchitectures and process nodes. The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture and is fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. The RX 7400 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture and is fabricated on a 6 nm process, also by TSMC. The MI300X chip is named Aqua Vanjaram, while the RX 7400 uses the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish.

The MI300X has 153,000 million transistors on a die size of 1017 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The RX 7400 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a density of 65.2 million per mm². The MI300X's larger die and higher transistor count reflect its design for massive parallel compute. The RX 7400's smaller die indicates a design focused on efficiency and lower production costs.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, providing 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s. The MI300X's memory bandwidth is over 18 times higher, which is critical for data-intensive workloads. The RX 7400's memory is sufficient for its intended graphics tasks but is not comparable for large-scale compute.

The compute resources also differ greatly. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs. It achieves a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s and an FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance is the same at 81.72 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The RX 7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 28 ray tracing cores. Its texture rate is 257.6 GTexel/s, and its FP32 throughput is 16.49 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance is 32.97 TFLOPS, using a 2:1 ratio. This means the MI300X has over 11 times the shading units and nearly 10 times the texture rate of the RX 7400. The RX 7400, however, has dedicated ray tracing hardware and a pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s, which the MI300X lacks entirely with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

The power and interface specifications further distinguish them. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W, uses an OAM module slot width, has no power connectors, and suggests a 1150 W power supply. It interfaces via PCIe 5.0 x16. The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W, a dual-slot width, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 200 W power supply. It uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300X also has no display outputs, while the RX 7400 offers standard video outputs. The MI300X supports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan APIs, while the RX 7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has an FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS and an FP16 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 has an FP32 throughput of 16.49 TFLOPS and an FP16 throughput of 32.97 TFLOPS. The MI300X delivers significantly higher compute performance.

Q: Which GPU is designed for graphics rendering?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 is designed for graphics rendering. It has 64 ROPs, a pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI300X has 0 ROPs, a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, and supports no display APIs or outputs.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The MI300X offers 24 times the memory capacity and substantially higher bandwidth.

Q: How do their benchmark scores compare?

A: The MI300X has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, placing it in the 100th percentile. The RX 7400 has an average benchmark score of 2467, placing it in the 17th percentile. The MI300X's score is over 128 times higher than the RX 7400's average, though they use different benchmark suites.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and suggests a power supply of 1150 W. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W and suggests a power supply of 200 W. The RX 7400 is far more power-efficient.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences recorded in the database.

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300X | AMD Radeon RX 7400 |

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

| 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 |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1452 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2300 MHz |

| 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 | 1792 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 1216 | 112 |

| Raster Output Units | 0 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 147.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 257.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 81.72 TFLOPS | 16.49 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 32.97 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 43 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 200 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark tests between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the AMD Radeon RX 7400. The MI300X is tested with Geekbench OpenCL, yielding a score of 317,994. The RX 7400 is tested with 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, scoring 1103, and multiple Passmark tests, including DirectX 9 (176), DirectX 10 (59), DirectX 11 (97), DirectX 12 (44), G2D (1209), G3D (11897), and GPU Compute (5152). Without a common test, a direct numerical comparison is not possible.

However, the MI300X's score can be interpreted through its nearest rivals. It is 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S and 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation. It is 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL and 8% behind the NVIDIA B200. This places the MI300X in the upper echelon of compute accelerators, just below the fastest data center GPUs in the database.

The RX 7400's performance is contextualized by its nearest rivals, which are all within 1.9% of its average score. The AMD Radeon 8040S is 1.1% higher, the NVIDIA GeForce 710M is 1.4% higher, the Intel HD Graphics 610 is 1.8% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M is 1.9% higher. This cluster of results confirms the RX 7400 sits firmly in the entry-level segment, competing with integrated and low-end discrete graphics solutions.

The MI300X's single benchmark result of 317,994 in OpenCL indicates massive compute capability, and its 100th percentile ranking shows it outperforms virtually all other GPUs in that test. The RX 7400's best individual score is its Passmark G3D result of 11897, which is its strongest showing in a graphics-oriented test. Its DirectX 9 score of 176 is notably higher than its DirectX 12 score of 44, suggesting optimization for older APIs. The RX 7400's Passmark GPU Compute score of 5152 is its only compute-specific result, and it is substantially lower than the MI300X's OpenCL score, though the tests are not directly comparable.

The architectural data reinforces the benchmark results. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units versus the RX 7400's 1,792, and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 257.6 GTexel/s. These differences explain the performance gap in compute-heavy tasks. The RX 7400, with 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s, is structured for rasterization and display output, which the MI300X cannot perform. The MI300X's memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s dwarfs the RX 7400's 288.0 GB/s, a critical factor for large datasets. The recorded data confirms that these two products serve entirely different purposes and performance tiers.