AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single shared benchmark between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the AMD Radeon RX 7600: Geekbench OpenCL. This test measures raw compute throughput, and the results are decisive. The Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, while the Radeon RX 7600 scores 88,051. The delta is 261.1% in favor of the Instinct MI300X. This means the accelerator delivers more than three and a half times the OpenCL score of the consumer graphics card.

Context from the nearest rival lists reinforces the scale of this gap. The Instinct MI300X sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 317,994. Its closest competitors include the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 (5% higher), the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482 (8% higher), the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 (7.5% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation at 287,237 (10.7% lower). The Radeon RX 7600, by contrast, sits at the 57th percentile with an average score of 15,171. Its nearest rivals are clustered tightly around it: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM at 15,199 (0.2% lower), the AMD Radeon Pro 560X at 15,082 (0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon 680M at 15,270 (0.7% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti at 15,063 (0.7% higher). The RX 7600's competitive neighborhood is separated from the MI300X's by roughly an order of magnitude in average score.

The head-to-head result is a single data point, but it aligns with the broader profile of each product. The MI300X is built as a compute accelerator with no display outputs, while the RX 7600 is a graphics card with a full set of display connections. The OpenCL test is compute-oriented, which favors the accelerator. No other shared tests exist in the database, so the comparison rests on this one measurement.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives one clear winner: the AMD Instinct MI300X wins the only head-to-head test. In Geekbench OpenCL, it outperforms the Radeon RX 7600 by 261.1%. This is the sole benchmark where both products appear, so the win tally is 1 for the MI300X and 0 for the RX 7600.

The Radeon RX 7600 does not win any shared benchmark against the MI300X. However, its own benchmark suite shows strengths in different areas. It records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,310, a Passmark G3D score of 16,634, a Passmark GPU Compute score of 8,790, and a Passmark G2D score of 984. These graphics-oriented tests have no MI300X equivalent in the database, so they cannot be compared directly. The MI300X has no graphics benchmark scores recorded beyond the OpenCL test, which reflects its design purpose: no display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support listed.

The use-case split follows the product positioning. The MI300X is an accelerator for compute workloads, evidenced by its HBM3 memory, 192 GB capacity, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7600 is a graphics card for rendering and display tasks, with 8 GB GDDR6 memory, 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. In the database, the MI300X wins compute, and the RX 7600 holds the only graphics-related scores, though no direct comparison is possible for those tests.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from the same manufacturer but use fundamentally different architectures. The MI300X uses CDNA 3.0, the data-center compute architecture, while the RX 7600 uses RDNA 3.0, the gaming and graphics architecture. The chip names reflect this split: the MI300X is built around the Aqua Vanjaram chip, and the RX 7600 uses Navi 33.

The process nodes differ. The MI300X is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 7600 uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Transistor counts are dramatically different: the MI300X contains 153,000 million transistors on a die size of 1017 mm², giving a density of 150.4M transistors per mm². The RX 7600 contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2M per mm². The MI300X has more than eleven times the transistor count of the RX 7600, and more than double the transistor density.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s. The RX 7600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The MI300X has 24 times the memory capacity and more than 18 times the bandwidth.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, and its texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1). The RX 7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 169.9 GPixel/s, texture rate is 339.8 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 21.75 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 21.75 TFLOPS (1:1). The MI300X delivers 3.76 times the FP32 throughput, but the RX 7600 has actual pixel output capability and dedicated ray tracing hardware, while the MI300X has none.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI300X runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The RX 7600 runs at 1720 MHz base, 2250 MHz game clock, and 2655 MHz boost. The RX 7600 has higher clock speeds across the board, but the MI300X compensates with vastly more hardware.

The MI300X is an OAM module with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RX 7600 is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The MI300X has no display outputs; the RX 7600 has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The MI300X launched on 2023-12-05, and the RX 7600 launched on 2023-05-24. The MI300X lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct, while the RX 7600 lists Navi II as predecessor and Navi IV as successor. The RX 7600 has an active production status; the MI300X has none listed.

FAQ

Q: Which product has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, which is 261.1% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 7600's 88,051.

Q: How does each product compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The MI300X is at the 100th percentile. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA H200 NVL, scores 334,891, which is 5% higher. The RX 7600 is at the 57th percentile, with its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, scoring 15,199, which is 0.2% lower.

Q: What memory configurations do the two products use?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both products support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The MI300X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The RX 7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, with no power connectors (OAM module). The RX 7600 has a TDP of 165 W, a suggested PSU of 450 W, and uses one 8-pin connector.

Q: Which product has display outputs?

A: The MI300X has no display outputs. The RX 7600 has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI300X | AMD Radeon RX 7600 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Navi 33 |

| 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 | 2655 MHz |

| Game clock | None | 2250 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 |

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

| Shading units | 19456 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 128 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| RT cores | None | 32 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 169.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 339.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 21.75 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 21.75 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 165 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 x8 |

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

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | None listed | 204 mm (8 inches) length, 115 mm (4.5 inches) height |

| Production status | None listed | Active |

| Release date | 2023-12-05 | 2023-05-24 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Navi II |

| Successor | None | Navi IV |

| Launch MSRP | None | 269 USD |

The MI300X also has a different benchmark profile: it records only Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 317,994, while the RX 7600 records multiple tests including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (2,310), Geekbench Vulkan (34,401), and several Passmark scores. The MI300X has no tensor core count listed, and neither product lists tensor cores in the database. The MI300X has no ROPs, which is consistent with its lack of pixel output. The RX 7600 has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s, confirming its role as a rendering device.