AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a stark contrast between two AMD parts that share a manufacturer but little else. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a dedicated accelerator with a single Geekbench OpenCL result of 317994, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU, an integrated graphics solution inside a handheld console processor, has no recorded benchmark scores, sits at the 50th percentile, and carries an average benchmark score of zero. On raw performance data alone, the MI300X is the only part with measurable compute output.

The MI300X positions itself among the top accelerators. Its score of 317994 trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5 percent and the NVIDIA B200 by 8 percent, while leading the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5 percent and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7 percent. This places it in a competitive band with the current generation of data center accelerators. The Z1 Extreme GPU has no comparable data, so no direct performance ranking exists for it in the database.

The choice between these two parts is dictated by their fundamental roles. The MI300X is for compute environments requiring massive memory capacity and throughput, with no display outputs. The Z1 Extreme GPU is a compact, active production part with a 280 mm length, 111 mm height, and 21 mm width, designed to render graphics for a handheld device. It includes one USB Type-C display output and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X supports no graphics APIs. Users needing a display output or consumer graphics API support must select the Z1 Extreme GPU. Users needing maximum compute throughput and memory bandwidth must select the MI300X.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm TSMC process. The Z1 Extreme GPU uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Phoenix chip, built on a 4 nm TSMC process. Both come from AMD, but they target entirely different workloads.

The MI300X integrates 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The Z1 Extreme GPU integrates 25,390 million transistors across a 178 mm² die, with a density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The MI300X has roughly six times the transistor count and nearly six times the die area.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The MI300X contains 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, with no ROPs. The Z1 Extreme GPU contains 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, plus 12 ray tracing cores. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed. The MI300X achieves a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the Z1 Extreme GPU reaches 129.6 GTexel/s. Pixel rate for the MI300X is listed as 0 MPixel/s, whereas the Z1 Extreme GPU delivers 86.40 GPixel/s.

Clock behavior differs notably. The MI300X runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz with a boost of 2100 MHz. The Z1 Extreme GPU has a lower base of 800 MHz but a higher boost of 2700 MHz. The Z1 Extreme GPU also has a higher memory clock at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, compared to the MI300X memory clock of 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. The MI300X uses HBM3 memory totaling 192 GB across an 8192-bit bus, producing 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Z1 Extreme GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 51.20 GB/s. The MI300X memory bandwidth is over 100 times greater.

Power and form factor define their deployment contexts. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W, requires a suggested PSU of 1150 W, and mounts as an OAM module with no power connectors listed. The Z1 Extreme GPU has a TDP of 30 W, needs no suggested PSU, and fits within a handheld chassis. The MI300X connects via PCIe 5.0 x16 and has no display outputs. The Z1 Extreme GPU has no bus interface listed but provides one USB Type-C output.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 output is 81.72 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output matches at 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Z1 Extreme GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 and 16.59 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The MI300X provides nearly ten times the FP32 throughput and roughly five times the FP16 throughput. The MI300X also leads in memory bandwidth at 5.32 TB/s versus 51.20 GB/s, and in memory capacity at 192 GB versus 16 GB.

The Z1 Extreme GPU wins in graphics features and physical integration. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300X lists no graphics API support. The Z1 Extreme GPU includes 12 ray tracing cores and 32 ROPs, enabling rasterization and ray traced workloads. The MI300X has zero ROPs and no ray tracing cores. The Z1 Extreme GPU is an active production part with a defined physical footprint, while the MI300X has no production status listed.

The Z1 Extreme GPU also wins on clock speed. Its boost clock of 2700 MHz exceeds the MI300X boost of 2100 MHz by 600 MHz. Its memory effective speed of 6.4 Gbps also exceeds the MI300X 5.2 Gbps effective. These clock advantages do not compensate for the massive differences in core count and memory bus width, but they indicate a design optimized for a different power envelope.

The MI300X holds the 100th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database, while the Z1 Extreme GPU sits at the 50th percentile. The MI300X has an average benchmark score of 317994, and the Z1 Extreme GPU has no recorded average. In terms of raw compute data, the MI300X wins every measurable performance category.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has a recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 317994, placing it at the 100th percentile. The AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU has no recorded benchmark scores and an average benchmark score of zero.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Z1 Extreme GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 51.20 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports display outputs?

A: The Z1 Extreme GPU provides one USB Type-C display output. The MI300X has no display outputs listed.

Q: How do the FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32. The Z1 Extreme GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS FP32. The MI300X provides approximately ten times the FP32 throughput.

Q: What graphics API support does each GPU have?

A: The Z1 Extreme GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists no graphics API support, with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all marked as N/A.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Z1 Extreme GPU has a TDP of 30 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table contains no entries, and the win counts for both parts are zero. The available performance comparison relies on the single Geekbench OpenCL score for the MI300X and the absence of scores for the Z1 Extreme GPU. The MI300X score of 317994 represents its average benchmark score and its only recorded result. The Z1 Extreme GPU has no benchmark entries, so no direct head-to-head comparison is possible from the recorded data.

The MI300X nearest rival data provides context for its standing. The NVIDIA H200 NVL has an average score of 334891, which is 5 percent higher than the MI300X. The NVIDIA B200 has an average score of 345482, 8 percent higher. The NVIDIA L40S scores 295763, which is 7.5 percent lower than the MI300X. The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287237, 10.7 percent lower. This places the MI300X within a tight competitive range, trailing the top two NVIDIA accelerators by single-digit percentages while leading the other two by similar margins.

The FP16 comparison shows a different ratio between the two parts. The MI300X achieves 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with its FP32 output. The Z1 Extreme GPU achieves 16.59 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 output is double its FP32 output of 8.294 TFLOPS. The MI300X still leads in absolute FP16 throughput by a factor of approximately five.

Memory bandwidth remains the largest single gap. The MI300X memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s exceeds the Z1 Extreme GPU bandwidth of 51.20 GB/s by more than a factor of 100. Memory capacity differs by a factor of 12, with 192 GB versus 16 GB. The bus width difference is 8192 bits versus 64 bits, a factor of 128.

The texture rate difference is also substantial. The MI300X reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s using 1,216 TMUs. The Z1 Extreme GPU reaches 129.6 GTexel/s using 48 TMUs. The MI300X texture rate is nearly 20 times higher. The Z1 Extreme GPU has a pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s, while the MI300X has no pixel rate, consistent with its lack of ROPs.

Shading unit counts show the scale of the MI300X. Its 19,456 shading units outnumber the Z1 Extreme GPU 768 shading units by a factor of over 25. The MI300X also has 1,216 TMUs versus 48, a factor of over 25. The Z1 Extreme GPU has 32 ROPs and 12 ray tracing cores, features the MI300X lacks entirely.

The release dates place both parts in the same general period. The MI300X launched on December 5, 2023, and the Z1 Extreme GPU launched on June 12, 2023. The Z1 Extreme GPU is listed as an active production part with a launch MSRP of 699 USD. The MI300X has no launch MSRP listed and no production status. The MI300X predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, while the Z1 Extreme GPU has no predecessor listed. Neither part has a listed successor.

The data indicates that the MI300X is built for maximum compute density in a server context, while the Z1 Extreme GPU is built for efficient graphics rendering inside a handheld console. Their architectures, memory systems, and API support reflect these divergent goals. The MI300X dominates in every measured compute category, while the Z1 Extreme GPU provides the graphics features and compact physical design necessary for its intended use case.