AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. The database lists a single OpenCL benchmark score for the AMD part and no benchmark scores for the NVIDIA part. This absence of overlapping measurements means a direct score comparison cannot be constructed from the available facts.

What the database does provide is a placement of the AMD Instinct MI300X against other accelerators. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 317994 places it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. That score sits 5% below the NVIDIA H200 NVL, which records an average score of 334891. The MI300X is 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S, which averages 295763. Against the NVIDIA B200, the MI300X trails by 8%, with the B200 averaging 345482. The MI300X also leads the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%, as that part averages 287237.

For the NVIDIA N1X 48SM, the database records an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile placement of 50. No rival list accompanies this entry, and no benchmark tests are listed. This means the N1X 48SM cannot be positioned relative to the MI300X or any other accelerator using measured performance data. The only verifiable statement is that the database holds no score for this part, so any comparison of raw compute output rests entirely on the architectural and specification differences rather than on benchmark outcomes.

The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and the same 81.72 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio. The N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 and 28.83 TFLOPS of FP16, also at a 1:1 ratio. On paper, the MI300X shows a substantially higher floating-point throughput, but the database does not confirm this with a matching head-to-head benchmark run. The MI300X also reaches a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the N1X 48SM reaches 900.9 GTexel/s. The MI300X's pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, whereas the N1X 48SM shows 112.6 GPixel/s, a difference that reflects the N1X having 48 ROPs against the MI300X's 0 ROPs.

Memory bandwidth differs sharply. The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, producing 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The N1X 48SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus, producing 273.2 GB/s. That is a difference of roughly 19.5 times in favor of the MI300X, although the database does not provide a direct test that translates this bandwidth advantage into a measured score.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins on compute density and memory capacity based on the recorded specifications. Its 19456 shading units, 1216 texture mapping units, and 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die indicate a design aimed at large-scale parallel workloads. The FP32 figure of 81.72 TFLOPS and the FP16 figure of 81.72 TFLOPS place it in a performance class that, according to the database's percentile ranking, sits above 100% of all GPUs. Its nearest rival comparisons confirm that it is competitive with the fastest accelerators in the database, trailing the H200 NVL and B200 by single-digit percentages while leading the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada Generation by similar margins.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins on form factor and integration characteristics. It is classified as an IGP, meaning it is integrated into a processor package rather than a discrete module. It has a display output, specifically 1x HDMI, while the MI300X has no display outputs. The N1X 48SM also includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores, features the MI300X does not list. Its 48 ROPs and 112.6 GPixel/s pixel rate give it a rasterization capability that the MI300X entirely lacks, as the MI300X records 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The N1X 48SM uses a smaller die at 382 mm² and its power connectors are listed as none, consistent with an integrated design.

The MI300X wins on memory bandwidth and capacity. The 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is an order of magnitude higher than the N1X 48SM's 273.2 GB/s, and the 192 GB capacity exceeds 128 GB. The MI300X also has a higher boost clock at 2100 MHz compared to 2346 MHz for the N1X 48SM, which is not a win for the MI300X; the N1X actually boosts higher despite its lower base clock of 741 MHz versus 1000 MHz. Clock speed alone does not determine the outcome, because the MI300X's much larger shader count and memory subsystem drive its throughput.

The N1X 48SM wins on efficiency of integration. It requires no external power connectors, fits an IGP slot width, and is listed as an active production part with a release date of 2026-05-31. The MI300X is an OAM Module with a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The N1X's TDP is listed as unknown, so no power comparison can be drawn beyond the connector and slot differences.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. For compute workloads that depend on raw FP32 or FP16 throughput, memory bandwidth, and large memory capacity, the AMD Instinct MI300X is the stronger part by specification. Its 81.72 TFLOPS in both precisions, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 192 GB HBM3 pool are decisive advantages, and its 100th percentile ranking confirms that it belongs to the top tier of the database. The nearest rival comparisons reinforce this: the MI300X sits within 8% of the B200 and 5% of the H200 NVL while leading the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 7.5% and 10.7% respectively.

For workloads that require rasterization, ray tracing, or display output, the NVIDIA N1X 48SM is the only one of the two with the relevant features. Its 48 ROPs, 112.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, 48 ray tracing cores, and 1x HDMI output are capabilities the MI300X does not offer at all. The N1X 48SM also fits an integrated form factor with no power connectors, making it suitable for systems where a discrete OAM module cannot be used.

The database contains no benchmark score for the N1X 48SM, so its actual performance relative to the MI300X cannot be quantified. The MI300X has a measured OpenCL score of 317994; the N1X 48SM has none. Any user choosing between these two parts must rely on the feature split: the MI300X for pure compute density and memory throughput, the N1X 48SM for integrated graphics with ray tracing and display support. The MI300X's 750 W TDP and OAM form factor indicate a data-center accelerator, while the N1X 48SM's IGP classification and HDMI output indicate a processor-integrated graphics solution. Neither part can substitute for the other in its respective role.

FAQ

Q: What is the AMD Instinct MI300X's average benchmark score?

A: The MI300X records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317994, which places it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to the NVIDIA H200 NVL in the database?

A: The MI300X is 5% below the H200 NVL, which has an average score of 334891.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1X 48SM have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The N1X 48SM has an average benchmark score of 0 and no listed benchmark tests.

Q: Which part has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 273.2 GB/s from 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1X 48SM support display output?

A: Yes, the N1X 48SM has 1x HDMI output, while the MI300X has no display outputs.

Q: Which part has ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The MI300X does not list ray tracing or tensor core counts.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Instinct MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip called Aqua Vanjaram, produced on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a chip called GB20B, also produced on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but with an unknown transistor count and a 382 mm² die. The MI300X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the N1X 48SM belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

The MI300X is built around a massive shader array: 19456 shading units and 1216 texture mapping units, with no ROPs, ray tracing cores, or tensor cores listed. Its memory subsystem relies on HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus. The N1X 48SM is a smaller design with 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 48 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. Its memory interface is 256-bit LPDDR5X. The transistor density of the MI300X is recorded as 150.4M per mm²; the N1X 48SM has no density figure listed.

The MI300X's FP32 and FP16 throughput are identical at 81.72 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The N1X 48SM also has a 1:1 FP32 to FP16 ratio, but at 28.83 TFLOPS. The MI300X's texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 900.9 GTexel/s for the N1X 48SM. Pixel rates differ because the MI300X has no ROPs, giving it 0 MPixel/s, while the N1X 48SM delivers 112.6 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The N1X 48SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the MI300X runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the N1X 48SM runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity differs: 192 GB for the MI300X versus 128 GB for the N1X 48SM. Memory type differs: HBM3 for the MI300X, LPDDR5X for the N1X 48SM. Bus width differs: 8192 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth differs: 5.32 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.

The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, with no power connectors because it is an OAM Module. The N1X 48SM has an unknown TDP, no suggested PSU, and no power connectors because it is an IGP. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The MI300X has no display outputs; the N1X 48SM has 1x HDMI. The MI300X's production status is not listed, while the N1X 48SM is listed as active. Release dates differ: the MI300X was released on 2023-12-05, and the N1X 48SM is dated 2026-05-31. The MI300X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor; the N1X 48SM has no predecessor listed. Neither part has a successor listed. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.