AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA H100 CNX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark runs between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the NVIDIA H100 CNX. The head-to-head benchmark field is empty, and the H100 CNX has no individual benchmark scores listed in the database. This makes a direct score-for-score comparison impossible from the available measurements.

However, the MI300X has a single recorded benchmark result: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994. This score places the MI300X at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning it sits at the top of the distribution. The H100 CNX, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of zero and sits at the 50th percentile, though that percentile figure reflects its position in the database rather than any measured performance.

The MI300X does have nearest rival data that provides context for its score. It trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5 percent, with the H200 NVL averaging 334,891 points. It also trails the NVIDIA B200 by 8 percent, with the B200 averaging 345,482 points. Conversely, the MI300X leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5 percent, as the L40S averages 295,763 points, and it leads the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7 percent, with that card averaging 287,237 points.

These deltas indicate that the MI300X sits in a competitive band near the top of the database. It is not the absolute fastest GPU by average score, but it is within 8 percent of the leading B200 and within 5 percent of the H200 NVL. The H100 CNX cannot be placed in this ranking because it has no measured score to compare.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins in raw compute throughput based on the fabricated specifications. Its FP32 output is 81.72 TFLOPS, compared to 53.84 TFLOPS for the H100 CNX. That is a clear advantage in single-precision floating point work. The MI300X also delivers a higher texture rate at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 841.3 GTexel/s for the H100 CNX.

In memory capacity and bandwidth, the MI300X again takes the lead. It has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The H100 CNX has 80 GB of HBM2e on a 5120-bit bus, yielding 2.04 TB/s. The MI300X offers more than double the memory capacity and more than double the bandwidth.

The H100 CNX wins in areas tied to its architecture and form factor. It has 24 ROPs and a pixel rate of 44.28 GPixel/s, whereas the MI300X has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The H100 CNX also carries 456 tensor cores, while the MI300X lists no tensor core count in the database. In FP16 throughput, the H100 CNX reaches 215.4 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio, which is higher than the MI300X's 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The H100 CNX also draws 350 W of power against the MI300X's 750 W, and it fits a dual-slot design with an 8-pin EPS connector, while the MI300X uses an OAM module with no power connectors listed.

The H100 CNX holds an advantage in physical integration. It is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The MI300X has no listed dimensions in the database. The H100 CNX also has an active production status, while the MI300X has no production status recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different design philosophies. The MI300X uses AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip called Aqua Vanjaram. The H100 CNX uses NVIDIA's Hopper architecture on the GH100 chip.

Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ substantially. The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The H100 CNX has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, for a density of 98.3 million per mm². The MI300X uses a larger die and a much higher transistor count, which aligns with its larger memory pool and wider bus.

Memory technology differs as well. The MI300X uses HBM3 with a 1300 MHz memory clock and 5.2 Gbps effective data rate. The H100 CNX uses HBM2e with a 1593 MHz memory clock and 3.2 Gbps effective data rate. Even though the H100 CNX runs its memory clock higher, the MI300X achieves far greater bandwidth due to its 8192-bit bus.

Core counts also diverge. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs. The H100 CNX has 14,592 shading units and 456 TMUs. The H100 CNX adds 456 tensor cores, a feature class the MI300X does not list. Neither part has RT cores in the database.

Clock behavior differs. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The H100 CNX has a base clock of 690 MHz and a boost clock of 1845 MHz. The MI300X runs at higher frequencies on both counts.

Power and cooling design separate the two as well. The MI300X is an OAM module with a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The H100 CNX is a dual-slot PCIe card with a 350 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 750 W. The H100 CNX uses an 8-pin EPS power connector; the MI300X lists no power connectors because it is an OAM module.

Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, and neither has display outputs. The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support, while the H100 CNX lists null values for those APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA H100 CNX delivers 53.84 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory does each accelerator have?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory, while the H100 CNX has 80 GB of HBM2e memory.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The MI300X provides 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth on an 8192-bit bus. The H100 CNX provides 2.04 TB/s on a 5120-bit bus.

Q: Does the H100 CNX have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the H100 CNX lists 456 tensor cores. The MI300X does not list a tensor core count in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The H100 CNX has a 350 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 750 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The MI300X has a score of 317,994. The H100 CNX has no benchmark score recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a split decision based on workload type. For workloads that rely on FP32 compute, large memory capacity, and high memory bandwidth, the MI300X is the stronger choice. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 output, 192 GB HBM3 pool, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth give it a decisive edge in those categories. Its nearest rival comparisons also confirm that it ranks near the top of the database, within 5 percent of the H200 NVL and 8 percent of the B200.

For workloads that depend on FP16 throughput, tensor core processing, or rasterization-like operations, the H100 CNX is better positioned. It delivers 215.4 TFLOPS of FP16 performance with a 4:1 ratio, carries 456 tensor cores, and has 24 ROPs with a 44.28 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI300X lists no tensor cores and has zero ROPs.

The H100 CNX also suits deployments with tighter power or physical constraints. It consumes 350 W versus 750 W, fits a dual-slot form factor, and has an active production status. The MI300X requires an OAM module with no listed dimensions and no production status.

The MI300X is the choice for memory-bound or FP32-heavy workloads. The H100 CNX is the choice for FP16-heavy or tensor-core-dependent workloads, or for systems with limited power and space. The absence of a benchmark score for the H100 CNX means the MI300X is the only one of the two with a measured performance data point in the database.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI300X | NVIDIA H100 CNX |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Hopper |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | GH100 |

| Process node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 80,000 million |

| Die size | 1017 mm² | 814 mm² |

| Transistor density | 150.4M / mm² | 98.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 690 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2100 MHz | 1845 MHz |

| Memory size | 192 GB | 80 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3 | HBM2e |

| Memory bus width | 8192 bit | 5120 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 2.04 TB/s |

| Shading units | 19,456 | 14,592 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 456 |

| ROPs | 0 | 24 |

| Tensor cores | Not listed | 456 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 44.28 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 841.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 53.84 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 215.4 TFLOPS (4:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 350 W |

| Slot width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 8-pin EPS |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 750 W |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm x 111 mm |

| Production status | Not listed | Active |

| Release date | 2023-12-05 | 2023-03-20 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Server Ada |

| Successor | Not listed | Server Blackwell |

| DirectX support | N/A | Null |

| OpenGL support | N/A | Null |

| Vulkan support | N/A | Null |

| Display outputs | No outputs | No outputs |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |