AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable benchmark between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080: Geekbench OpenCL. The MI300X scores 317994, while the RTX 5080 scores 235901. That represents a 34.8% advantage for the AMD accelerator, a substantial margin in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

The MI300X sits in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms every other recorded GPU in this test. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA B200 at 345482 (8% higher), the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334891 (5% higher), the NVIDIA L40S at 295763 (7.5% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation at 287237 (10.7% lower). The RTX 5080, by contrast, ranks in the 87th percentile, with its nearest rivals clustered tightly around it: the AMD Radeon 8060S at 55757 (0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB at 55698 (0.7% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X at 54828 (2.3% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE at 57367 (2.2% lower). This contrast in competitive positioning is stark: the MI300X competes at the absolute top of the database, while the RTX 5080 trades places with mid-range Radeon parts.

The single head-to-head result tells a clear story. The MI300X delivers 34.8% more OpenCL performance than the RTX 5080. That gap is far larger than the differences observed among the RTX 5080's nearest rivals, which fall within a range of roughly 2.3% above to 2.2% below. It also exceeds the margin between the MI300X and several of its own rivals, such as the 7.5% gap to the L40S and the 10.7% gap to the RTX 6000 Ada. Only the B200 and H200 NVL sit ahead of the MI300X, and neither does so by more than 8%.

The RTX 5080 does not win any head-to-head benchmark in the recorded data. Its wins tally stands at zero, while the MI300X records one win. However, the RTX 5080 has a much wider set of benchmark results in the database, including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 8637, PassMark DirectX 10 at 208, DirectX 11 at 324, DirectX 12 at 151, DirectX 9 at 389, G2D at 1415, G3D at 36565, GPU Compute at 21789, and Geekbench Vulkan at 255450. The MI300X has only the single OpenCL result, so cross-benchmark comparisons are limited to what the shared test reveals.

The OpenCL result is particularly meaningful because it is a compute-oriented workload. The MI300X's 34.8% lead aligns with its design as a data center accelerator with massive memory resources, while the RTX 5080 is built for client graphics and real-time rendering. The benchmark data confirms that the AMD part holds a decisive edge in this specific compute scenario.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317994, which is 34.8% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080's score of 235901.

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

A: The MI300X trails the NVIDIA B200 by 8% (345482 vs 317994) and the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% (334891 vs 317994), but leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% (295763) and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7% (287237).

Q: How does the RTX 5080 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 5080's average score of 56083 sits within 2.3% of all four nearest rivals: the AMD Radeon 8060S (55757, 0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698, 0.7% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54828, 2.3% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE (57367, 2.2% lower).

Q: What percentile ranking does each GPU hold?

A: The MI300X ranks in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RTX 5080 ranks in the 87th percentile.

Q: Does the RTX 5080 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the MI300X wins the only shared test (Geekbench OpenCL), giving it one win and the RTX 5080 zero wins.

Q: What other benchmarks exist for the RTX 5080?

A: The RTX 5080 has results for 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (8637), Geekbench Vulkan (255450), PassMark DirectX 10 (208), DirectX 11 (324), DirectX 12 (151), DirectX 9 (389), G2D (1415), G3D (36565), and GPU Compute (21789).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD Instinct MI300X uses CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 uses Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB203 chip, also fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Both parts therefore share the same process node and foundry, but the silicon designs diverge sharply.

The MI300X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The RTX 5080 integrates 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, with a density of 120.6M per mm². The MI300X's die is nearly three times larger and packs more than three times the transistor count. This reflects the different design goals: the MI300X is an accelerator with enormous compute and memory resources, while the RTX 5080 is a client GPU with a more modest footprint.

Memory architecture also differs completely. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5080 uses 16 GB of GDDR7 with a 256-bit bus and 960.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300X offers 12 times the memory capacity and more than five times the bandwidth. Memory clocks differ as well: the MI300X runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the RTX 5080 runs at 1875 MHz with 30 Gbps effective. The RTX 5080's memory clock is higher, but the MI300X's vastly wider bus dominates total bandwidth.

Compute resources also diverge. The MI300X has 19456 shading units and 1216 TMUs, but zero ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The RTX 5080 has 10752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, with a 293.1 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI300X has no dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed, while the RTX 5080 includes 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores. The MI300X's texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s, versus 879.3 GTexel/s for the RTX 5080.

API support differs as well. The MI300X reports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. The RTX 5080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This reflects the MI300X's compute-focused role with no display outputs, versus the RTX 5080's full client graphics feature set with 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds differ significantly. The MI300X has a 1000 MHz base clock and 2100 MHz boost clock. The RTX 5080 has a 2295 MHz base clock and 2617 MHz boost clock, meaning the NVIDIA part runs at more than double the base frequency and roughly 25% higher boost.

Memory configuration differs in every measurable field. The MI300X delivers 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus at 5.32 TB/s. The RTX 5080 delivers 16 GB of GDDR7 across a 256-bit bus at 960.0 GB/s.

Compute throughput differs in both precision formats. The MI300X achieves 81.72 TFLOPS in FP32 and 81.72 TFLOPS in FP16 (1:1). The RTX 5080 achieves 56.28 TFLOPS in FP32 and 56.28 TFLOPS in FP16 (1:1). The MI300X leads by roughly 45% in both.

Power and physical specifications diverge. The MI300X has a 750 W TDP, while the RTX 5080 has a 360 W TDP. The MI300X uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors and calls for a 1150 W suggested PSU. The RTX 5080 is a dual-slot card with a 1x 16-pin connector and a 750 W suggested PSU. The MI300X has no display outputs, while the RTX 5080 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b.

Dimensions exist only for the RTX 5080: 304 mm length, 137 mm height, 40 mm width. The MI300X has no recorded dimensions. The bus interface is identical at PCIe 5.0 x16.

The RTX 5080 has a launch MSRP of 999 USD. The MI300X has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the AMD Instinct MI300X as the clear winner in the only directly comparable test. Its 34.8% OpenCL lead over the RTX 5080 places it in a different performance tier entirely, as evidenced by its 100th percentile ranking versus the RTX 5080's 87th percentile. The MI300X also sits alongside the B200 and H200 NVL at the top of the database, whereas the RTX 5080's nearest rivals are all mid-range Radeon parts with average scores around 55000 to 57000.

The MI300X wins in compute-heavy scenarios that leverage its 192 GB HBM3 memory and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 throughput, combined with 19456 shading units and a 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate, make it suited for large-scale data center workloads. The absence of display outputs and API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan indicates a pure accelerator role, not a client graphics product.

The RTX 5080 wins in scenarios where the MI300X has no recorded capability: real-time rendering, ray tracing, and display output. Its 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores, along with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, enable client graphics workloads. The 293.1 GPixel/s pixel rate and 112 ROPs provide rasterization throughput that the MI300X lacks entirely. The RTX 5080 also holds a clock advantage, with a 2617 MHz boost versus 2100 MHz for the MI300X.

The RTX 5080's power efficiency is another point in its favor. It draws a 360 W TDP with a 750 W suggested PSU, compared to 750 W and 1150 W for the MI300X. The RTX 5080 delivers its 56.28 TFLOPS at roughly half the power draw, though the MI300X delivers significantly more total throughput.

The MI300X wins on raw compute scale, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and absolute FP32/FP16 performance. The RTX 5080 wins on client features, clock speeds, display outputs, API support, and ray tracing capability. The two GPUs target different markets, and the benchmark data reflects that split cleanly: the MI300X dominates in the single shared compute test, while the RTX 5080 offers capabilities the MI300X does not provide.