AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300X and AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU are both AMD designs, but they target entirely different segments of the hardware landscape. The MI300X is a data center accelerator built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU is a mobile console graphics processor based on RDNA 3.0. The recorded data shows a massive divide in compute resources, memory subsystems, and performance metrics, with the MI300X occupying the top percentile of all GPUs and the Ryzen Z1 sitting at the 50th percentile.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X ranks in the 100th percentile against all GPUs, while the AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU ranks in the 50th percentile.

Q: How do the two chips compare in terms of manufacturing process?

A: The MI300X uses a 5 nm process node, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU is built on a 4 nm process node. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The MI300X features 192 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192 bit bus, whereas the Ryzen Z1 GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 64 bit bus.

Q: Does the Ryzen Z1 GPU support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the Ryzen Z1 GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance of each accelerator?

A: The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU delivers 2.560 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

Q: What is the TDP of each device?

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

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, designed for compute-intensive data center workloads. Its chip, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, is a massive die measuring 1017 mm² with 153,000 million transistors. The transistor density reaches 150.4M per mm². The Ryzen Z1 GPU uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built for graphics rendering in mobile console environments. Its Phoenix chip is much smaller at 178 mm², with 25,390 million transistors and a density of 142.6M per mm².

The MI300X employs 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs. The Ryzen Z1 GPU has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The MI300X does not list ray tracing cores, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU includes 4 ray tracing cores. Neither part lists tensor cores.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192 bit bus width and a bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s. The Ryzen Z1 GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 64 bit bus, offering 51.20 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI300X memory clock runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU memory runs at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The MI300X runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Ryzen Z1 GPU has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, giving it higher raw clock rates despite far lower compute resources.

The MI300X is an OAM Module with no display outputs and no power connectors listed. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The Ryzen Z1 GPU also has no display outputs but lists physical dimensions of 280 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 21 mm in width. Its production status is Active.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct use cases. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a data center accelerator with a 100th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 317994 in Geekbench OpenCL. It is designed for high-throughput compute tasks where massive memory capacity and bandwidth are critical. The Ryzen Z1 GPU, with a 50th percentile ranking and no recorded benchmark scores, is a compact mobile console GPU with a 30 W TDP, suited for embedded or handheld gaming scenarios where power efficiency and physical size matter more than raw compute.

The MI300X is the clear choice for anyone needing maximum FP32 throughput, as it delivers 81.72 TFLOPS compared to the Ryzen Z1 GPU's 2.560 TFLOPS. The MI300X also offers 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU offers 16 GB of LPDDR5 with 51.20 GB/s. The Ryzen Z1 GPU counters with a much smaller 178 mm² die, a 4 nm process, and a 30 W TDP, making it suitable for low-power environments.

The Ryzen Z1 GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it functional for graphics rendering workloads that require modern APIs. The MI300X lists no API support, reflecting its compute-only orientation. The MI300X has a suggested PSU of 1150 W, indicating a system-level power requirement that the Ryzen Z1 GPU does not impose.

Specification Differences

The two devices differ in nearly every recorded specification. The MI300X uses a 5 nm process node, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU uses a 4 nm node. The MI300X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU has 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI300X and 142.6M per mm² for the Ryzen Z1 GPU.

Base clocks are 1000 MHz for the MI300X and 1500 MHz for the Ryzen Z1 GPU. Boost clocks are 2100 MHz and 2500 MHz respectively. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective for the MI300X and 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective for the Ryzen Z1 GPU.

Memory capacity is 192 GB for the MI300X versus 16 GB for the Ryzen Z1 GPU. Memory type is HBM3 for the MI300X and LPDDR5 for the Ryzen Z1 GPU. Bus width is 8192 bit for the MI300X and 64 bit for the Ryzen Z1 GPU. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s for the MI300X and 51.20 GB/s for the Ryzen Z1 GPU.

Shading units number 19,456 for the MI300X and 256 for the Ryzen Z1 GPU. TMUs are 1,216 versus 16. ROPs are 0 versus 8. Ray tracing cores are not listed for the MI300X but are 4 for the Ryzen Z1 GPU.

Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI300X and 20.00 GPixel/s for the Ryzen Z1 GPU. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI300X and 40.00 GTexel/s for the Ryzen Z1 GPU. FP32 compute is 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300X and 2.560 TFLOPS for the Ryzen Z1 GPU. FP16 compute is 81.72 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio for the MI300X and 5.120 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio for the Ryzen Z1 GPU.

TDP is 750 W for the MI300X and 30 W for the Ryzen Z1 GPU. The MI300X is an OAM Module with no power connectors, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU lists no slot width and no power connectors. The MI300X has a suggested PSU of 1150 W; the Ryzen Z1 GPU has none. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the Ryzen Z1 GPU lists no bus interface. Both have no display outputs. The MI300X has no dimensions listed, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU measures 280 mm by 111 mm by 21 mm.

The MI300X has no production status listed, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU is Active. The MI300X release date is 2023-12-05, and the Ryzen Z1 GPU release date is 2023-09-17. The MI300X has no launch MSRP, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU has a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark dataset is empty, but the individual Geekbench OpenCL score for the MI300X provides a reference point. The MI300X records an average benchmark score of 317994, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs. The Ryzen Z1 GPU has no recorded benchmark scores and an average benchmark score of 0, placing it in the 50th percentile.

The nearest rivals for the MI300X show where it sits in the broader market. The NVIDIA H200 NVL has an average score of 334891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X. The NVIDIA B200 scores 345482, 8% higher. The NVIDIA L40S scores 295763, which is 7.5% lower than the MI300X. The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287237, 10.7% lower.

The MI300X leads the L40S by 7.5% and the RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7% in average benchmark score. It trails the H200 NVL by 5% and the B200 by 8%. These deltas indicate that the MI300X is competitive within the top tier of accelerators, holding a position above the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada Generation while slightly behind the H200 NVL and B200.

The Ryzen Z1 GPU has no nearest rivals listed and no benchmark scores, so no direct comparison can be made from the recorded data. Its 50th percentile ranking and 30 W TDP suggest a fundamentally different performance class.

The FP32 compute figures reinforce the gap. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, which is roughly 32 times the Ryzen Z1 GPU's 2.560 TFLOPS. Texture rate differs similarly, with the MI300X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 40.00 GTexel/s for the Ryzen Z1 GPU. Memory bandwidth is even more lopsided: 5.32 TB/s for the MI300X versus 51.20 GB/s for the Ryzen Z1 GPU, a difference of more than 100 times.

The Ryzen Z1 GPU does show advantages in certain metrics. Its pixel rate is 20.00 GPixel/s, while the MI300X is rated at 0 MPixel/s. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz is higher than the MI300X's 2100 MHz. Its base clock of 1500 MHz exceeds the MI300X's 1000 MHz. These figures reflect the Ryzen Z1 GPU's focus on rendering efficiency rather than raw compute throughput.

The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU has 256. The MI300X has 1,216 TMUs, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU has 16. The MI300X has 0 ROPs, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU has 8. The Ryzen Z1 GPU includes 4 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the MI300X's recorded specifications.

The specification sheet shows the MI300X with a 1017 mm² die and 153,000 million transistors, compared to the Ryzen Z1 GPU's 178 mm² die and 25,390 million transistors. The MI300X uses HBM3 memory, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU uses LPDDR5. The MI300X requires a 1150 W suggested PSU, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU has no PSU requirement listed.

The MI300X is an OAM Module with a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU lists no bus interface and has physical dimensions that suggest a compact mobile form factor. The MI300X has no production status, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU is marked Active. The Ryzen Z1 GPU has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the MI300X has no launch MSRP recorded.

The recorded data confirms the MI300X as a high-end compute accelerator with top-tier performance relative to its nearest rivals. The Ryzen Z1 GPU operates in a different performance envelope entirely, with lower compute, lower memory bandwidth, and a much smaller power footprint.