AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon RX 7700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single shared benchmark between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the AMD Radeon RX 7700: Geekbench OpenCL. This is a decisive comparison, with the Instinct MI300X scoring 317,994 against the RX 7700's 106,028. The delta is 199.9%, meaning the Instinct MI300X delivers roughly three times the raw compute throughput in this workload. This is not a marginal advantage; it is a fundamental gap in execution capability that reflects the two products' entirely different design targets.

The Instinct MI300X's OpenCL result places it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the database are NVIDIA data center parts: the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482 (8% ahead of the MI300X), the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 (5% ahead), the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 (7.5% behind the MI300X), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation at 287,237 (10.7% behind). The MI300X sits squarely in the top tier of compute accelerators, trading blows with the most expensive NVIDIA offerings. It trails the B200 and H200 NVL by single-digit percentages, while leading the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada by a similar margin. This is a narrow competitive band at the absolute top of the performance hierarchy, where a 5 to 10 percent difference is significant but does not change the fundamental classification of the product.

The Radeon RX 7700, by contrast, scores 106,028 in the same OpenCL test and sits at the 58th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are far more modest parts: the AMD Radeon R9 370X at 15,862 (0.1% behind the RX 7700), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 at 16,014 (1% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 at 15,679 (1.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti at 16,129 (1.7% behind). These delta values are all within roughly 2%, indicating that the RX 7700's average benchmark score of 15,852 places it in a tightly packed mid-range cluster. The RX 7700's individual benchmark scores include a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 2,865, a Passmark G3D score of 20,974, a Passmark GPU Compute score of 10,963, and DirectX 10, 11, 12, and 9 scores of 92, 186, 96, and 261 respectively, along with a Passmark G2D score of 1,206.

The contrast between the two GPUs' benchmark positioning is stark. The MI300X's single recorded benchmark is its average, 317,994, and it competes exclusively against enterprise accelerators. The RX 7700's average, 15,852, is computed from nine separate tests spanning different DirectX versions, compute workloads, and 2D operations, and it competes against consumer and workstation GPUs from several generations ago. Direct comparison between the two is only possible on the shared OpenCL test, where the MI300X leads by 199.9%, but the surrounding data makes clear that these are not adjacent products in any meaningful sense.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple split. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a compute accelerator built for maximum throughput, with a 100th percentile ranking and OpenCL performance that rivals or beats the top NVIDIA data center parts. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is a mid-range consumer graphics card, ranked at the 58th percentile, with a benchmark profile dominated by DirectX and 2D tests that the MI300X cannot even run, since the MI300X has no display outputs and no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support listed in the database.

For workloads that run on OpenCL and require massive parallel compute, the MI300X is the clear choice by the numbers. It delivers 199.9% more OpenCL performance than the RX 7700, and its nearest rivals are the B200, H200 NVL, L40S, and RTX 6000 Ada, all of which are within 10.7% of its score in either direction. The RX 7700 cannot approach this class of performance, and its nearest rivals are all within 1.7% of its average, a completely different competitive tier.

For graphics workloads, the RX 7700 is the only one of the two that is applicable at all. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it has display outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C. The MI300X lists no display outputs and no graphics API support, so it cannot be used for rendering to a screen or for DirectX-based gaming. The RX 7700 also has a production status of Active, while the MI300X's production status is not recorded in the database.

The MI300X's 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth versus the RX 7700's 16 GB of GDDR6 with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth further separates the two. The MI300X is designed for models and datasets that exceed the memory capacity of any consumer card, while the RX 7700's 16 GB is typical for a mid-range graphics product. The MI300X's 750 W TDP and suggested PSU of 1150 W, with no power connectors (OAM module), compare to the RX 7700's 200 W TDP, suggested PSU of 550 W, and 2x 8-pin power connectors. These are not interchangeable products; they serve different users with different requirements.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Instinct MI300X than the AMD Radeon RX 7700 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The MI300X scores 317,994, and the RX 7700 scores 106,028. The MI300X leads by 199.9%.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the AMD Instinct MI300X in the database?

A: The NVIDIA B200 (345,482 average score, 8% ahead), the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891, 5% ahead), the NVIDIA L40S (295,763, 7.5% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237, 10.7% behind).

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the AMD Radeon RX 7700 in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 370X (15,862 average score, 0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (16,014, 1% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15,679, 1.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16,129, 1.7% behind).

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI300X support graphics APIs?

A: The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the MI300X, and it has no display outputs. The RX 7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C outputs.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W, a suggested PSU of 1150 W, and no power connectors (OAM module). The RX 7700 has a TDP of 200 W, a suggested PSU of 550 W, and uses 2x 8-pin power connectors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across every major specification category. The MI300X uses 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the RX 7700 uses 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die. The transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI300X versus 81.2M per mm² for the RX 7700. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the MI300X's die is nearly three times larger.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The RX 7700 has a base clock of 1900 MHz, a game clock of 2041 MHz, and a boost clock of 2459 MHz, with memory at 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). The RX 7700 runs at much higher clocks, but the MI300X compensates with far more execution units.

The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, with 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 81.72 TFLOPS. The RX 7700 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 393.4 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 25.18 TFLOPS. The MI300X also has no listed RT cores, while the RX 7700 has 40 RT cores. Both achieve the same FP16 to FP32 ratio of 1:1.

The MI300X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the RX 7700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300X is an OAM module with no power connectors, while the RX 7700 is a dual-slot card with 2x 8-pin connectors and dimensions of 267 mm length, 135 mm height, and 50 mm width. The MI300X has no display outputs; the RX 7700 has 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, designed for the Instinct (MIx) generation. The RX 7700 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, from the Radeon RX 7000 series and Navi III (RX 7000) generation. The MI300X's predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the RX 7700's predecessor is Navi II and its successor is Navi IV. The release dates differ: the MI300X launched on December 5, 2023, and the RX 7700 launched on September 17, 2025.

The memory subsystems reflect the architectural split. The MI300X uses HBM3 with 192 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, optimized for data center compute and large model residency. The RX 7700 uses GDDR6 with 16 GB capacity, a 256-bit bus, and 624.1 GB/s bandwidth, optimized for consumer graphics and gaming. The MI300X's texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is over six times the RX 7700's 393.4 GTexel/s, and its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is over three times the RX 7700's 25.18 TFLOPS.

The API support is a key architectural differentiator. The MI300X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, meaning it is not a graphics-oriented part. The RX 7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X also has no RT cores listed, while the RX 7700 includes 40 RT cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The MI300X has 0 ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, confirming that it does not perform rasterization, while the RX 7700 has 96 ROPs and a 236.1 GPixel/s pixel rate. These are two different architectures serving two different markets, with the only common thread being the AMD brand and the shared 5 nm TSMC process node.