AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison, and it belongs entirely to the AMD Instinct MI300X. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MI300X scores 317,994 against the RX 7600 XT’s 92,426, a 244.1% advantage. This is not a narrow margin; it is a dominant outcome that reflects the fundamentally different purposes of the two accelerators.

The MI300X is built for compute density. Its percentile ranking of 100 means it sits above every other GPU in the database for overall benchmark performance. Its nearest rivals in the database are NVIDIA’s B200 (345,482 average score, 8% ahead), the H200 NVL (334,891 average score, 5% ahead), the L40S (295,763 average score, 7.5% behind), and the RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237 average score, 10.7% behind). These are all data-center class accelerators, and the MI300X competes directly with them. The RX 7600 XT, by contrast, ranks at the 60th percentile, placing it near the middle of the database’s GPU population.

The RX 7600 XT wins in every other sense, but the data does not include a synthetic gaming or graphics workload that pits the two directly. Its only benchmark scores come from its own suite: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (2,348), Geekbench Vulkan (48,366), Passmark DX9 (228), DX10 (85), DX11 (167), DX12 (65), G2D (1,030), G3D (17,132), and GPU Compute (8,987). The MI300X has no display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support listed, and its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s. That means the MI300X cannot drive a monitor or run a rasterization workload in any conventional sense. The RX 7600 XT exists for exactly those tasks.

The use-case split is therefore clear. For raw compute throughput, the MI300X is the only choice between the two. For any client-side workload involving graphics APIs, rendering, or display output, the RX 7600 XT is the sole functional option. The MI300X is an OAM module with no power connectors and no display outputs; the RX 7600 XT is a dual-slot card with one 8-pin connector, HDMI 2.1a, and three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The data does not support a scenario where the RX 7600 XT outperforms the MI300X in compute, nor does it support a scenario where the MI300X can render frames.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a manufacturer, AMD, but diverge at every architectural layer. The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, designed specifically for accelerated computing. The RX 7600 XT uses RDNA 3.0, AMD’s graphics-focused architecture. The chip names reflect this split: the MI300X uses “Aqua Vanjaram,” while the RX 7600 XT uses “Navi 33” with the codename “Hotpink Bonefish.”

The manufacturing process differs. The MI300X is built on TSMC’s 5 nm node, while the RX 7600 XT uses TSMC’s 6 nm node. That difference is visible in transistor density. The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, yielding 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 7600 XT has 13,300 million transistors across a 204 mm² die, for 65.2 million per square millimeter. The MI300X uses over 11 times the transistor count and over 5 times the die area.

Memory architecture is the most consequential divergence. The MI300X carries 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7600 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 288.0 GB/s. That is an 18-fold difference in raw memory bandwidth, and it explains why the MI300X leads so heavily in compute benchmarks. The MI300X’s memory clock is listed as 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the RX 7600 XT runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), but the bus width difference overwhelms the clock advantage.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The RX 7600 XT has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI300X’s texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 352.6 GTexel/s for the RX 7600 XT. FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS on the MI300X versus 22.57 TFLOPS on the RX 7600 XT, both at a 1:1 ratio for FP16. The MI300X also has no pixel rate because it lacks ROPs entirely, while the RX 7600 XT manages 176.3 GPixel/s. The RX 7600 XT has 32 ray tracing cores; the MI300X’s ray tracing core count is not recorded.

Clock speeds favor the RX 7600 XT. Its base clock is 1980 MHz, its game clock is 2470 MHz, and its boost clock is 2755 MHz. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The RX 7600 XT’s higher clocks do not compensate for the MI300X’s massive resource advantage in compute, but they do reflect a design aimed at responsive client workloads.

Power and interface differences are stark. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, with no power connectors because it is an OAM module. The RX 7600 XT has a TDP of 190 W, a suggested PSU of 450 W, and a single 8-pin connector. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the RX 7600 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The RX 7600 XT is dual-slot, measuring 204 mm by 115 mm, while the MI300X’s dimensions are not recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 92,426 for the RX 7600 XT, a 244.1% advantage.

Q: Can the MI300X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI300X lists no display outputs, and its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s. The RX 7600 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7600 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the RX 7600 XT support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes. It lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The MI300X has 153,000 million transistors, while the RX 7600 XT has 13,300 million. The MI300X’s die is 1017 mm² versus 204 mm² for the RX 7600 XT.

Q: What is the power requirement for each card?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, with no power connectors. The RX 7600 XT has a 190 W TDP, a suggested PSU of 450 W, and uses one 8-pin connector.

Specification Differences

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

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

| 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 | 1980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2755 MHz |

| Game Clock | None | 2470 MHz |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 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 | 19,456 | 2,048 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 128 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| RT Cores | None recorded | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 176.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 352.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 22.57 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 22.57 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| 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 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 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2024-01-23 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 329 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one direct comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The MI300X records 317,994 points, and the RX 7600 XT records 92,426 points. The delta is 244.1% in favor of the MI300X. That is the only head-to-head result, and it is decisive.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies the magnitude. The MI300X’s closest competitors in the database are all NVIDIA data-center parts. The B200 leads the MI300X by 8%, the H200 NVL leads by 5%, and the L40S trails by 7.5%, while the RTX 6000 Ada Generation trails by 10.7%. The MI300X sits in the upper cluster of the database’s compute hierarchy. The RX 7600 XT’s nearest rivals are entirely different: the GTX 690 (0.3% behind), the Radeon HD 7970M (0.4% behind), the RTX 3070 (0.7% ahead), and the Tesla M4 (0.9% behind). The RX 7600 XT’s average benchmark score is 17,083, while the MI300X’s is 317,994. The RX 7600 XT’s percentile rank of 60 places it near the middle of the distribution, whereas the MI300X sits at 100.

The MI300X’s wins extend beyond the single head-to-head. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is 3.6 times the RX 7600 XT’s 22.57 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is 7.2 times higher. Its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s is 18.5 times higher. The RX 7600 XT does not win any recorded head-to-head benchmark, but it does hold advantages in client-facing metrics: a 5.3 times higher pixel rate, higher base and boost clocks, and full graphics API support.

The data does not show a multi-core or gaming benchmark where the RX 7600 XT closes the gap. Its Passmark DirectX scores are low (228 for DX9, 167 for DX11, 85 for DX10, 65 for DX12), and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2,348. These are not comparable to the MI300X because the MI300X has no DirectX support at all. The two GPUs operate in separate performance domains, and the only shared metric confirms that separation.