AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA L4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two accelerators, and the result is decisively lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Instinct MI300X posts a score of 317,994, while the NVIDIA L4 scores 140,838. That is a delta of 125.8 percent in favor of the MI300X, meaning the AMD part delivers more than double the raw compute throughput in this workload.

To contextualize that lead, look at where each card sits relative to its own competitive set. The MI300X is in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms every other recorded device. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA B200, which scores 345,482 (8 percent higher), and the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 (5 percent higher). Against the NVIDIA L40S, the MI300X is 7.5 percent ahead, and it beats the RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7 percent. So while the MI300X does not top every rival in absolute terms, its OpenCL result places it at the very ceiling of the database's distribution.

The NVIDIA L4, by contrast, sits at the 95th percentile. Its average benchmark score is 131,072, which is derived from two recorded runs: 140,838 in OpenCL and 121,306 in Vulkan. The L4's nearest rivals are much closer in performance. The GeForce RTX 3090 Ti averages 131,938, just 0.7 percent higher. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 135,218, a 3.1 percent gap. The A10M and Radeon PRO W6800 are also within 3.2 percent. This indicates the L4 is a mid-tier performer that trades blows with consumer and workstation cards from the previous generation, whereas the MI300X operates in an entirely different performance stratum.

The single head-to-head result underscores that these are not competing products in the same segment. The MI300X's OpenCL score is more than double the L4's best recorded result, and even the L4's Vulkan score, which is not part of the direct comparison, is still far below the MI300X's OpenCL figure. The data shows a 125.8 percent advantage for the AMD part in the only test where both appear, and no benchmark in the database flips that outcome.

FAQ

Q: Which product has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, while the NVIDIA L4 scores 140,838. The MI300X leads by 125.8 percent in the head-to-head record.

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

A: The MI300X is 8 percent behind the NVIDIA B200, 5 percent behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL, and 7.5 percent ahead of the NVIDIA L40S. It also beats the RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7 percent.

Q: What is the NVIDIA L4's performance relative to its closest competitors?

A: The L4's average score of 131,072 is 0.7 percent below the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, 3.1 percent below the RTX 4000 Ada Generation, 3.1 percent below the A10M, and 3.2 percent below the Radeon PRO W6800.

Q: What are the memory configurations of the two cards?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The L4 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 300.1 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports more API features?

A: The NVIDIA L4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, consistent with its compute-focused design.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of the L4?

A: The L4 measures 169 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 56 mm (2.2 inches) in height. It is a single-slot card. The MI300X is an OAM module with no listed dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architectural lineages, and those differences explain the performance gap. The MI300X is built on AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture, with the chip codenamed Aqua Vanjaram. It uses a 5 nm process from TSMC and packs 153,000 million transistors onto a die of 1017 mm². That yields a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The L4 uses NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture, with the AD104 chip, also fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. It contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The MI300X is a massive chip by any measure, while the L4 is a modestly sized accelerator.

The compute resources differ sharply. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no raster operation units, which aligns with its purpose as a data center compute part. Its texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is listed as 0 MPixel/s because it has no display or raster output. The L4, by contrast, has 7,424 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. It also includes 60 ray tracing cores and 240 tensor cores, features absent from the MI300X's specification list. The L4's pixel rate is 163.2 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 489.6 GTexel/s.

Floating-point throughput tells a similar story. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, with a 1:1 ratio. The L4 delivers 30.29 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, also at 1:1. The MI300X has roughly 2.7 times the FP32 throughput of the L4, which tracks with the OpenCL benchmark delta.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, achieving 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The L4 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, achieving 300.1 GB/s. The MI300X has 8 times the memory capacity and over 17 times the bandwidth. Its memory clock is listed at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the L4's memory runs at 1563 MHz with 12.5 Gbps effective. The L4's higher per-pin data rate does not compensate for the MI300X's vastly wider bus.

Power and physical design also differ. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and ships as an OAM module with no power connectors, requiring a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The L4 has a TDP of 72 W, is a single-slot PCIe card, also has no power connectors, and requires a suggested PSU of 250 W. The L4 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Neither card has display outputs. The L4 is listed as active in production, while the MI300X has no production status recorded.

Release dates are also distinct: the L4 appeared on 2023-03-20, and the MI300X followed on 2023-12-05. The L4's predecessor is Server Ampere, and its successor is Server Hopper. The MI300X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, with no successor listed.

The Verdict

The data makes one thing clear: the AMD Instinct MI300X and the NVIDIA L4 are not direct competitors. They occupy different tiers of the accelerator market, and the benchmark results reflect that separation.

For workloads measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the MI300X is the clear choice. It scores 317,994, which is 125.8 percent higher than the L4's OpenCL result. It also sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the L4 sits at the 95th. The MI300X offers 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, which is essential for large model training or inference tasks. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is more than double the L4's 30.29 TFLOPS. If the task requires maximum compute and memory capacity, the MI300X is the only rational pick from these two.

The NVIDIA L4, however, has its own strengths. It is a single-slot, 72 W PCIe card that fits into standard server chassis. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which makes it usable in graphics or mixed workloads where the MI300X has no API support. Its 24 GB of GDDR6 memory is sufficient for many inference or rendering tasks, and its 60 ray tracing cores and 240 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for features the MI300X does not list. The L4 also has a production status of Active, while the MI300X's status is not recorded.

The choice depends on the workload. For pure compute density and memory bandwidth, the MI300X dominates. For a low-power, widely compatible accelerator that can handle graphics APIs and fits in a compact form factor, the L4 is the sensible option. The benchmark data does not show any scenario where the L4 outperforms the MI300X in raw compute, but the L4's feature set and power envelope make it suitable for deployments where the MI300X's 750 W TDP and OAM form factor are impractical.

Specification Differences

The following table and list cover only the fields where the two products differ, based on the database records.

| Field | AMD Instinct MI300X | NVIDIA L4 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | AD104 |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Server Ada (Lxx) |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 795 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2040 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective | 1563 MHz, 12.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 300.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 7424 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 240 |

| ROPs | 0 | 80 |

| RT Cores | Not listed | 60 |

| Tensor Cores | Not listed | 240 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 163.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 489.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 30.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 30.29 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 72 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 169 mm (6.7 inches) length, 56 mm (2.2 inches) height |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

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

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Server Ampere |

| Successor | Not listed | Server Hopper |

| Average Benchmark Score | 317994 | 131072 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 100 | 95 |

The two cards share the same process node (5 nm TSMC) and foundry, and both have no power connectors and no display outputs. They also share a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio. Those similarities aside, the MI300X is a much larger, more powerful, and more power-hungry part, while the L4 is a compact, low-power accelerator with broader API support.