AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon RX 7700S Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X and the AMD Radeon RX 7700S serve entirely different purposes, and the benchmark data reflects this separation. The MI300X wins the only shared benchmark in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 317994 against the RX 7700S's 62983. That is a 404.9% advantage for the data center accelerator. The MI300X sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RX 7700S ranks at the 78th percentile.

The MI300X is built for raw compute throughput in server environments. Its single recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, places it ahead of several high-end NVIDIA data center parts. The nearest rival, the NVIDIA B200, averages 345482, which is 8% higher than the MI300X's 317994. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334891, putting it 5% higher. However, the MI300X beats the NVIDIA L40S (295763) by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287237) by 10.7%. This places the MI300X in the upper echelon of compute accelerators, just below the top two NVIDIA parts but above the mid-tier data center offerings.

The RX 7700S, by contrast, is a mobile graphics processor. Its benchmark profile includes Geekbench OpenCL (62983), Geekbench Vulkan (36380), and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (2185). The Vulkan score of 36380 is notably lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting the architecture handles compute APIs differently. The 3DMark Steel Nomad result, a DirectX 12 workload, shows the RX 7700S can handle modern gaming workloads, but its raw compute scores place it near older desktop GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (33951, 0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33997, 0.4% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB (33694, 0.5% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 (33622, 0.7% lower). The average benchmark score for the RX 7700S is 33849, which clusters it tightly with these older or workstation-class parts.

The use-case split is clear from the data. The MI300X has no display outputs and no graphics API support (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all listed as N/A). It is a compute-only accelerator. The RX 7700S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," confirming its role as a mobile gaming and workstation GPU. The MI300X wins in compute density, while the RX 7700S wins in graphical feature support and power efficiency (the data shows 750 W TDP for the MI300X versus 100 W for the RX 7700S).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317994, while the AMD Radeon RX 7700S scores 62983. The MI300X leads by 404.9%.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The MI300X's average score is 317994. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334891 (5% higher), the NVIDIA B200 scores 345482 (8% higher), the NVIDIA L40S scores 295763 (7.5% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287237 (10.7% lower).

Q: What graphics APIs does the RX 7700S support?

A: The RX 7700S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on a 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How does the RX 7700S rank against its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7700S averages 33849. The AMD Radeon HD 7950 scores 33951 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 480 scores 33997 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB scores 33694 (0.5% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 scores 33622 (0.7% lower).

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor count?

A: The MI300X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The RX 7700S has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains only one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two products: Geekbench OpenCL. The MI300X scores 317994, and the RX 7700S scores 62983. The delta is 404.9% in favor of the MI300X. This is a massive margin, reflecting the difference in compute scale: the MI300X has 19456 shading units versus 2048 on the RX 7700S, and the MI300X's FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 20.48 TFLOPS on the RX 7700S.

The MI300X's OpenCL score places it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. That means it outperforms every other recorded GPU in this specific test. The RX 7700S, at the 78th percentile, sits in the upper half but far from the top. In the context of the MI300X's rivals, the 317994 score is 8% below the NVIDIA B200's 345482 and 5% below the NVIDIA H200 NVL's 334891. It is, however, 7.5% above the NVIDIA L40S and 10.7% above the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation.

For the RX 7700S, the OpenCL score of 62983 contributes to an average benchmark score of 33849, alongside its Vulkan score of 36380 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2185. The average of 33849 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals: the HD 7950 (33951), the RX 480 (33997), the GTX 1060 5 GB (33694), and the RTX A5000 (33622). The RX 7700S's performance envelope is thus comparable to a mix of 2012-era and 2016-era desktop GPUs, as well as a 2021 workstation card.

The MI300X's win is decisive in the only shared metric. The RX 7700S has no wins in any head-to-head benchmark, as the database records 1 win for the MI300X and 0 for the RX 7700S. This is expected, given the target markets: the MI300X is an accelerator module with no display outputs, while the RX 7700S is an integrated mobile GPU with full graphics API support.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The MI300X uses a 5 nm process node, while the RX 7700S uses a 6 nm node, both from TSMC. The transistor counts diverge sharply: 153,000 million for the MI300X versus 13,300 million for the RX 7700S. Die sizes are 1017 mm² and 204 mm², respectively. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI300X and 65.2M per mm² for the RX 7700S.

Clock speeds show different design priorities. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, with no game clock listed. The RX 7700S has a base clock of 1500 MHz, a boost clock of 2500 MHz, and a game clock of 2200 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the MI300X runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the RX 7700S runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are orders of magnitude apart. The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s. The RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. The shading unit counts are 19456 for the MI300X and 2048 for the RX 7700S. Texture mapping units are 1216 versus 128. Raster operations units are listed as 0 for the MI300X and 64 for the RX 7700S. The RX 7700S has 32 ray tracing cores, while the MI300X lists none.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The MI300X has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The RX 7700S has a pixel rate of 160.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 320.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300X and 20.48 TFLOPS for the RX 7700S. FP16 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) for the MI300X and 40.96 TFLOPS (2:1) for the RX 7700S.

Power and physical specifications differ completely. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W, uses an OAM Module slot width, and has no power connectors listed. Its suggested PSU is 1150 W. The RX 7700S has a TDP of 100 W, uses an IGP slot width, and has no power connectors listed. The MI300X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the RX 7700S uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300X has no display outputs, while the RX 7700S has "Portable Device Dependent" outputs.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the RX 7700S uses RDNA 3.0. These are separate architectures optimized for different workloads. The MI300X's chip is named "Aqua Vanjaram," and the RX 7700S uses the "Navi 33" chip with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish." The MI300X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, whereas the RX 7700S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation.

The MI300X's predecessor is listed as "Radeon Instinct," while the RX 7700S's predecessor is "Polaris Mobile." The RX 7700S has a production status of "Active," while the MI300X's production status is not listed in the database. Release dates are recorded: the MI300X was released on 2023-12-05, and the RX 7700S on 2023-01-03.

The CDNA 3.0 architecture in the MI300X is designed for compute acceleration, which is why it has no graphics API support and no display outputs. The RDNA 3.0 architecture in the RX 7700S is designed for graphics and gaming, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores, while the RX 7700S has 32. The MI300X's FP16 performance is 1:1 with FP32, indicating a compute-focused design where both precisions run at the same rate. The RX 7700S's FP16 performance is 2:1, meaning it processes FP16 at twice the rate of FP32, a common trait for consumer GPUs with shader-based FP16 support.

The memory architectures also differ fundamentally. The MI300X uses HBM3, a high-bandwidth stacked memory designed for data center workloads, with a 8192-bit bus. The RX 7700S uses GDDR6, a conventional graphics memory, on a 128-bit bus. The MI300X's 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is a direct result of the HBM3 implementation, while the RX 7700S's 288.0 GB/s is typical for a mobile GPU with a narrow bus.

The transistor density figures highlight the different design philosophies. The MI300X achieves 150.4M transistors per mm², while the RX 7700S achieves 65.2M per mm². This is partly due to the process node difference (5 nm versus 6 nm) and partly due to the MI300X's massive compute array. The MI300X's die size of 1017 mm² is among the largest in the database, while the RX 7700S's 204 mm² is a compact mobile chip.

The API support difference is stark. The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming it is not a graphics card in any conventional sense. The RX 7700S supports all three, with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) being the most recent version. This means the RX 7700S can run modern games and graphics workloads, while the MI300X is restricted to compute tasks such as machine learning, scientific simulation, and data processing.

The slot widths reflect their mounting environments. The MI300X uses an OAM Module, which is a data center form factor for accelerators. The RX 7700S uses IGP, indicating it is integrated into a portable device. The MI300X's suggested PSU of 1150 W is a server-level requirement, while the RX 7700S has no suggested PSU listed, consistent with its mobile integration.