AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA A10M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the NVIDIA A10M, and it is a decisive one. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Instinct MI300X scored 317,994 points, while the NVIDIA A10M scored 135,230 points. This translates to a delta of 135.2% in favor of the AMD part, meaning the MI300X delivers more than double the raw compute performance in this specific workload. The victory is absolute in the head-to-head tally, with one win for the AMD Instinct MI300X and zero for the NVIDIA A10M.

To contextualize the MI300X score, the database places it in the 100th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482 points, which is 8% higher, and the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 points, which is 5% higher. On the other side, the MI300X leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% (295,763 points) and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7% (287,237 points). This positioning shows that while the MI300X is not the absolute peak in the database, it sits within a narrow band of very high-end accelerators, and its OpenCL result is 135.2% ahead of the A10M.

The NVIDIA A10M, by contrast, ranks in the 96th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are clustered extremely close to its score: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 135,218 points (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 135,396 points (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo scores 135,774 points (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 scores 136,472 points (0.9% higher). The A10M is effectively tied with these workstation-class cards, which underscores that its performance tier is dramatically lower than the MI300X. The 135.2% gap between the two products is not incremental; it is a generational and architectural chasm.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of roles. The AMD Instinct MI300X is the overwhelming choice for workloads where raw OpenCL compute throughput is the primary requirement, and where the system can accommodate a high-power, high-memory accelerator. Its 317,994 score in Geekbench OpenCL places it in the top percentile of all GPUs, and it outperforms the A10M by 135.2%. Any application that is heavily compute-bound, such as large-scale matrix operations or AI inference training loops, would see a massive performance uplift with the MI300X.

The NVIDIA A10M, with its 135,230 score, is the appropriate selection for environments constrained by power, physical space, or legacy software ecosystems. It is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP, and it supports a full suite of modern graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, none of which are available on the MI300X. The A10M also retains rasterization capabilities, with a pixel rate of 130.8 GPixel/s and 80 ROPs, while the MI300X has no pixel rate at all. For users who need a server accelerator that can handle both compute and traditional graphics pipelines, the A10M is the only viable option in this comparison.

However, from a pure performance standpoint, the verdict is unambiguous. The MI300X wins the only head-to-head benchmark by a margin of 135.2%, and its nearest rivals are all top-tier accelerators, not mid-range workstation parts. The A10M’s rivals are all within 1% of each other, indicating it is a solid but unremarkable performer in its class. The choice hinges entirely on whether the user needs the MI300X’s extreme compute density or the A10M’s lower power draw and API support.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Instinct MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process, while the NVIDIA A10M uses the Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. This process node difference is significant: the MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors onto a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The A10M’s GA102 chip contains 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, for a density of 45.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The MI300X has more than five times the transistor count and more than three times the density, which explains its overwhelming compute advantage.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The MI300X features 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The A10M uses 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 500.2 GB/s. The MI300X has 9.6 times the memory capacity and more than 10 times the bandwidth. The clock speeds also differ: the MI300X runs at a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz, while the A10M runs at 975 MHz base and 1635 MHz boost. Despite the A10M’s higher memory clock in effective terms (12.5 Gbps vs 5.2 Gbps), its narrower bus and smaller capacity cannot compete.

The compute resources are starkly different as well. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, with a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s and an FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS. The A10M has 7,168 shading units and 224 TMUs, with a texture rate of 366.2 GTexel/s and 23.44 TFLOPS FP32. The MI300X has 2.7 times the shading units, 5.4 times the TMUs, and 3.5 times the FP32 throughput. The A10M does have dedicated ray tracing cores (56) and tensor cores (224), which the MI300X lacks entirely. The A10M also has 80 ROPs and a pixel rate of 130.8 GPixel/s, whereas the MI300X reports 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s, confirming that the MI300X is a pure compute accelerator with no rasterization pipeline.

Specification Differences

The two products differ on nearly every measurable specification. The MI300X is an OAM module, while the A10M is a single-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height. The MI300X has no power connectors and requires a 1150 W suggested power supply, with a TDP of 750 W. The A10M uses an 8-pin EPS connector, has a 450 W suggested power supply, and a TDP of 150 W, exactly one-fifth of the MI300X’s power draw.

The bus interfaces differ by generation: the MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the A10M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300X has no display outputs, and the A10M also has no display outputs, so neither is suited for direct video output. The API support is a major differentiator: the MI300X has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, while the A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The memory specifications are decisive: 192 GB HBM3 vs 20 GB GDDR6, 8192-bit vs 320-bit bus, and 5.32 TB/s vs 500.2 GB/s. The clock structure also differs, with the MI300X’s base clock 25 MHz higher and its boost clock 465 MHz higher. The production status is also different: the A10M is listed as end-of-life, while the MI300X has no such status. The MI300X’s predecessor is the Radeon Instinct, and its release date is December 5, 2023. The A10M’s predecessor is Tesla Turing, and its successor is Server Ada. Neither product has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 135.2% higher than the NVIDIA A10M’s 135,230 score. The MI300X wins the only head-to-head test in the database.

Q: How does the AMD Instinct MI300X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The MI300X is 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) and 8% behind the NVIDIA B200 (345,482). It is 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) and 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237).

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s on an 8192-bit bus. The A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory with a bandwidth of 500.2 GB/s on a 320-bit bus. The MI300X offers 9.6 times the capacity and over 10 times the bandwidth.

Q: Does the NVIDIA A10M support graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Instinct MI300X has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, making it unsuitable for traditional graphics workloads.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and requires a 1150 W suggested power supply. The A10M has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 450 W suggested power supply. The A10M draws exactly one-fifth the power of the MI300X.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and higher FP32 throughput?

A: The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The A10M has 7,168 shading units and 23.44 TFLOPS of FP32. The MI300X has 2.7 times the shading units and 3.5 times the FP32 throughput.