AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon RX 7600S Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark database splits these two AMD parts across completely different test suites, reflecting their divergent roles. The AMD Instinct MI300X records a single OpenCL benchmark score of 317994, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. That is a perfect percentile ranking, meaning no recorded GPU scores higher in the database's aggregate ranking. The AMD Radeon RX 7600S, by contrast, holds a 60th percentile ranking, with an average benchmark score of 16696 across ten recorded tests.

The MI300X wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 317994 against the RX 7600S's 68012. The delta is 367.6 percent, the largest margin recorded in any head-to-head comparison between these two parts. The RX 7600S wins no head-to-head comparisons because the database records no other overlapping test.

The RX 7600S does show strengths in its own test categories. Its Passmark G3D score of 15408 and Passmark G2D score of 776 indicate a functioning graphics pipeline for conventional rendering workloads. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1888 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 73868 demonstrate that it can execute modern graphics APIs. The MI300X, in contrast, lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support, and its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s. The data indicates a compute accelerator with no display or rasterization path versus a mobile GPU with full graphics API coverage.

The MI300X's nearest rivals in the database are all data-center accelerators: NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334891 (5 percent ahead of the MI300X), NVIDIA B200 at 345482 (8 percent ahead), NVIDIA L40S at 295763 (7.5 percent behind), and NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation at 287237 (10.7 percent behind). The RX 7600S's nearest rivals are a mix of low-power workstation and consumer parts: NVIDIA T400 4 GB at 16792 (0.6 percent behind), NVIDIA T400 at 16508 (1.1 percent behind), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 at 16504 (1.2 percent behind), and NVIDIA Tesla M4 at 16932 (1.4 percent ahead). These rival sets confirm that the MI300X competes in the highest tier of compute performance, while the RX 7600S sits in a mid-range mobile segment.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different AMD architectures built for different purposes. The MI300X uses CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-optimized architecture, on a chip called Aqua Vanjaram. The RX 7600S uses RDNA 3.0, the graphics-oriented architecture, on a chip called Navi 33, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The MI300X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the RX 7600S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation.

The manufacturing processes differ. The MI300X is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 7600S uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the scale difference: the MI300X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The RX 7600S integrates 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The MI300X packs over eleven times the transistor count on roughly five times the die area.

Memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The MI300X carries 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7600S carries 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s. That is a 20.8 times difference in bandwidth, a gap that dominates any memory-bound workload. The MI300X's memory clock is listed at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the RX 7600S runs its memory at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The MI300X has 19456 shading units, 1216 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, with a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The RX 7600S has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores, with a texture rate of 246.4 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 140.8 GPixel/s. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the RX 7600S includes them. The MI300X's FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is also 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The RX 7600S delivers 15.77 TFLOPS FP32 and 31.54 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The RX 7600S therefore doubles its FP16 rate relative to FP32, while the MI300X does not.

Clock speeds and power envelopes differ sharply. The MI300X has a 1000 MHz base clock and a 2100 MHz boost clock, with a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RX 7600S has a 1500 MHz base clock, a 2200 MHz boost clock, and a 1865 MHz game clock, with a 75 W TDP. The RX 7600S boosts 100 MHz higher despite using a fraction of the power budget. The MI300X is an OAM module with no display outputs and no power connectors listed, while the RX 7600S is an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The API support tells the same story. The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The RX 7600S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7600S uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Release dates also differ: the RX 7600S launched on 2023-01-03, and the MI300X launched on 2023-12-05. The RX 7600S's predecessor is Polaris Mobile, while the MI300X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct. Both parts have no successor listed, and neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the MI300X wins decisively. Its score of 317994 compares to the RX 7600S's 68012, a delta of 367.6 percent. That means the MI300X delivers more than four and a half times the OpenCL compute score of the mobile GPU.

Context from the nearest rival tables sharpens the picture. The MI300X sits within 5 percent of the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334891) and within 8 percent of the NVIDIA B200 (345482), both of which score above it. It leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5 percent and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7 percent. The RX 7600S, meanwhile, trades positions with low-end NVIDIA workstation cards: it trails the NVIDIA Tesla M4 by 1.4 percent, trails the NVIDIA T400 4 GB by 0.6 percent, and leads the NVIDIA T400 by 1.1 percent and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 by 1.2 percent. The RX 7600S's nearest rivals all fall within a 2.6 percentage point band, indicating a tightly contested mid-range cluster, while the MI300X's rivals span a 20.2 percentage point band across the top of the database.

The MI300X's percentile rank of 100 versus the RX 7600S's 60 quantifies the overall standing. In the database's aggregate ranking, the MI300X is at the ceiling, and the RX 7600S is in the upper-middle range. The average benchmark score difference is stark: 317994 versus 16696. However, that average is not directly comparable across the two parts because the MI300X has one recorded benchmark while the RX 7600S has ten, spanning different test types.

Within the RX 7600S's own benchmark set, the highest score comes from Geekbench Vulkan at 73868, just ahead of its Geekbench OpenCL score of 68012. Its Passmark G3D score of 15408 and Passmark GPU Compute score of 6520 show a substantial gap between graphics and compute throughput. The Passmark DirectX scores are low in absolute terms: 211 for DirectX 9, 140 for DirectX 11, 74 for DirectX 10, and 65 for DirectX 12. The G2D score of 776 reflects 2D graphics performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1888 is the only modern gaming-oriented test recorded. These numbers indicate that the RX 7600S is a capable mobile graphics processor, but its compute scores sit far below the MI300X's single OpenCL result.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317994, which is 367.6 percent higher than the AMD Radeon RX 7600S's 68012.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each GPU in the database?

A: The MI300X's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334891, NVIDIA B200 at 345482, NVIDIA L40S at 295763, and NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation at 287237. The RX 7600S's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla M4 at 16932, NVIDIA T400 4 GB at 16792, NVIDIA T400 at 16508, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 at 16504.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7600S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RX 7600S has a 75 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MI300X has 19456 shading units, while the RX 7600S has 1792. The MI300X also has 1216 TMUs versus 112, but the RX 7600S has 64 ROPs and 28 ray tracing cores, while the MI300X has 0 ROPs and no ray tracing cores listed.

The Verdict

The data separates these two GPUs by purpose, not just by performance. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a compute accelerator built for maximum throughput at the top of the database's rankings. Its 100th percentile standing, 192 GB of HBM3 memory, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 performance place it alongside the NVIDIA H200 NVL and B200, with single-digit percentage differences in either direction. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no ROPs, so it is not intended for rendering workloads in any conventional sense. The 367.6 percent OpenCL lead over the RX 7600S confirms its role as a data-center compute part.

The AMD Radeon RX 7600S is a mobile graphics processor with a 75 W TDP, 8 GB of GDDR6, and full support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 60th percentile ranking and its nearest rival cluster, all within 1.4 percent of its average score, place it in a competitive mid-range mobile segment. It has 28 ray tracing cores and 64 ROPs, neither of which the MI300X provides. Its FP16 rate of 31.54 TFLOPS is double its FP32 rate, a feature the MI300X does not offer.

The recorded data supports a clear split: the MI300X wins the only shared benchmark by a wide margin and occupies the top percentile of the database, while the RX 7600S wins no head-to-head comparisons but provides graphics features, API support, and a power envelope that the MI300X does not. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload is compute-oriented, where the MI300X dominates, or graphics-oriented on a mobile platform, where the RX 7600S is the only one of the two with the required capabilities. There is no overlap in their intended use cases, and the benchmark data reflects that separation.