AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the AMD Instinct MI300X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 in entirely different segments. The MI300X is a data center accelerator with a benchmark percentile of 100, meaning it outperforms every other GPU in the database. The RTX 4010 sits at the 18th percentile, a low-range desktop part. The MI300X delivers an OpenCL score of 317,994, while the RTX 4010 posts a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,893; these tests are not directly comparable, but the percentile gap confirms a massive performance chasm.

The MI300X is the choice for compute-heavy workloads where massive memory capacity and raw throughput matter. Its nearest rivals in the database, the NVIDIA B200 (345,482, 8% higher), the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891, 5% higher), and the NVIDIA L40S (295,763, 7.5% lower), show it competes at the top of the accelerator tier. The RTX 4010, by contrast, sits near the bottom of the GeForce 40-series lineup. Its nearest rivals are the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB (2,907, 0.5% higher), RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF (2,910, 0.6% higher), and RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (2,913, 0.7% higher), indicating it is a low-power entry-level card.

For buyers needing a GPU with display outputs, a single-slot form factor, and a low 50 W TDP, the RTX 4010 is the only option. For those building a server or workstation with no display output requirement and a need for 192 GB of HBM3 memory, the MI300X is the only choice. The data shows no overlap in use cases.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process, with a die size of 1017 mm² and 153,000 million transistors. The RTX 4010 uses the Ampere architecture on Samsung's 8 nm process, with a 200 mm² die and 8,700 million transistors. The transistor density reflects this: the MI300X packs 150.4 million transistors per mm², while the RTX 4010 achieves 43.5 million per mm².

The MI300X has no display outputs, no pixel rate, and no ROPs, confirming it is not designed for rasterized graphics. It does have 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, delivering 2,553.6 GTexel/s and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32. The RTX 4010 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and 24 tensor cores, with a pixel rate of 28.19 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 42.29 GTexel/s. Its FP32 output is 2.706 TFLOPS.

The MI300X supports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan APIs, while the RTX 4010 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X uses an OAM module slot width with no power connectors, while the RTX 4010 is single-slot with no power connectors. The MI300X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface; the RTX 4010 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4010 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s. The MI300X memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the RTX 4010 memory clock is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The MI300X base clock is 1000 MHz with a 2100 MHz boost; the RTX 4010 base clock is 1417 MHz with a 1762 MHz boost.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI300X has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus. The RTX 4010 has 96.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RTX 4010 has a TDP of 50 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Does either card support ray tracing?

A: The RTX 4010 includes 6 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The MI300X has no listed RT core count and supports no DirectX APIs.

Q: What display outputs does each card have?

A: The RTX 4010 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The MI300X has no display outputs at all.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The MI300X boosts to 2100 MHz, while the RTX 4010 boosts to 1762 MHz. The RTX 4010 has a higher base clock at 1417 MHz versus 1000 MHz for the MI300X.

Q: What is the release date and production status of each?

A: The MI300X was released on 2023-12-05, and the RTX 4010 was released on 2024-04-15. The RTX 4010 has an active production status; the MI300X has no listed production status.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every recorded field. The MI300X uses a 5 nm TSMC process; the RTX 4010 uses an 8 nm Samsung process. Transistor count is 153,000 million versus 8,700 million. Die size is 1017 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density is 150.4M / mm² versus 43.5M / mm².

Base clock: 1000 MHz (MI300X) versus 1417 MHz (RTX 4010). Boost clock: 2100 MHz versus 1762 MHz. Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). Memory size: 192 GB versus 4 GB. Memory type: HBM3 versus GDDR6. Bus width: 8192 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Shading units: 19,456 versus 768. TMUs: 1,216 versus 24. ROPs: 0 versus 16. RT cores: not listed versus 6. Tensor cores: not listed versus 24. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS. FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP: 750 W versus 50 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus Single-slot. Power connectors: None for both. Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus 250 W. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: No outputs versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6. Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4. Dimensions: the RTX 4010 is 163 mm (6.4 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high; the MI300X has no listed dimensions.

Release date: 2023-12-05 for the MI300X, 2024-04-15 for the RTX 4010. Predecessor: Radeon Instinct for the MI300X, GeForce 30 for the RTX 4010. Successor: none listed for the MI300X, GeForce 50 for the RTX 4010. The RTX 4010 is listed as Active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database has no shared benchmark tests between the two cards. The MI300X was tested with Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 317,994. The RTX 4010 was tested with 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, scoring 2,893. Because these tests measure different workloads, direct score comparison is not valid. The percentile data provides context: the MI300X sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 4010 sits at the 18th.

The MI300X's nearest rivals show its position. The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482, which is 8% higher. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891, 5% higher. The NVIDIA L40S scores 295,763, which is 7.5% lower. The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287,237, 10.7% lower. This places the MI300X firmly in the top accelerator tier, between the L40S and the H200 NVL.

The RTX 4010's nearest rivals cluster tightly. The NVIDIA Quadro P600 scores 2,923, which is 1% higher. The RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB scores 2,913, 0.7% higher. The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF scores 2,910, 0.6% higher. The RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB scores 2,907, 0.5% higher. The RTX 4010 is effectively within 1% of all four rivals, indicating it sits at the very bottom of the performance range for its test.

The biggest numerical win for the MI300X comes from its FP32 compute: 81.72 TFLOPS, which is over 30 times the RTX 4010's 2.706 TFLOPS. The texture rate difference is similarly large: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, a factor of more than 55. The MI300X also leads in shading units (19,456 versus 768) and TMUs (1,216 versus 24).

The RTX 4010 wins on clock speeds, power efficiency, and graphics features. Its base clock of 1417 MHz is 417 MHz higher than the MI300X's 1000 MHz. Its TDP of 50 W is 700 W lower than the MI300X's 750 W. The RTX 4010 has 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and 24 tensor cores, none of which are listed for the MI300X. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300X lists N/A for all three APIs.

The RTX 4010 also has a higher memory clock at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), though the MI300X's vastly wider bus and larger memory pool make its total bandwidth dominant. The RTX 4010 has display outputs and a single-slot form factor, making it usable in a desktop workstation context. The MI300X has no display outputs and uses an OAM module slot, confirming its server-only design.