AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X and NVIDIA Quadro GP100 occupy entirely different corners of the GPU landscape, and the benchmark data reflects that divide clearly. In the single recorded OpenCL benchmark, the MI300X takes the only win, posting a score of 317,994 against the Quadro GP100's 87,445. That is a decisive 263.7% advantage, making the MI300X the clear choice for any workload that scales with raw compute throughput.

However, the use-case split is not merely about raw score. The MI300X sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms every other recorded graphics card in this specific test. The Quadro GP100, while far behind, still lands at the 93rd percentile, indicating it remains competitive within its own generation and class. The data suggests the MI300X is designed for maximum compute density, while the Quadro GP100 is a more modest professional accelerator.

For tasks like large-scale AI training, scientific simulation, or high-throughput data processing, the MI300X's massive score advantage makes it the only viable choice from these two. The Quadro GP100, with its far lower score, would be better suited for lighter professional workloads, legacy software environments, or systems where power and space constraints are paramount. The Quadro's 93rd percentile ranking shows it is not obsolete, but it is operating in a different performance tier entirely.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two accelerators is generational. The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a "chip" design called Aqua Vanjaram, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1,017 mm² die. The Quadro GP100 uses the Pascal architecture, a 16 nm process at TSMC, with 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die. The transistor density is stark: 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter for the MI300X versus 25.1 million for the Quadro. That is a six-fold density increase, made possible by the newer manufacturing node.

Memory architecture is equally divergent. The MI300X ships with 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8,192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro GP100 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 4,096-bit bus, giving 732.2 GB/s. The memory clock differs as well: the MI300X runs at 1,300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the Quadro runs at 715 MHz with 1,430 Mbps effective. The AMD card offers 12 times the capacity and over 7 times the bandwidth, a massive advantage for datasets that exceed the Quadro's 16 GB limit.

Compute resources also move in different directions. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs, giving it a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The Quadro GP100 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, achieving a pixel rate of 138.5 GPixel/s. The MI300X's texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus the Quadro's 323.2 GTexel/s. The AMD card is clearly compute-optimized, with no display output and no graphics API support (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan all N/A), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, along with display outputs (1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a).

Feature differences also matter. The MI300X has no power connectors (it uses an OAM module slot), while the Quadro uses a single 8-pin connector. The AMD card has PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, the Quadro only PCIe 3.0 x16. The MI300X is released in December 2023, and the Quadro in September 2016, a seven-year gap that shows in every metric.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, and the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87,445. The MI300X wins with a delta of 263.7%. To put that in perspective, the MI300X's score is roughly 3.6 times higher than the Quadro's. In raw percentage, the AMD card is 263.7% faster, meaning it more than triples the Quadro's output in this test.

The nearest rivals for the MI300X provide context. The NVIDIA H200 NVL averages 334,891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X's average, making it the only rival that beats the AMD card. The NVIDIA B200 averages 345,482, or 8% higher, and the L40S averages 295,763, or 7.5% lower than the MI300X. The RTX 6000 Ada Generation averages 287,237, which is 10.7% lower. So the MI300X sits near the top of the high-end compute stack, trailing only the H200 and B200 in this metric.

The Quadro GP100's rivals are in a much lower performance band. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 averages 87,108, just 0.4% lower than the Quadro's average, so they are effectively tied. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX averages 85,637, which is 2.1% lower. The RTX A4500 Mobile averages 91,134, or 4% higher, and the RTX A4500 averages 91,671, or 4.6% higher. The Quadro is thus competitive with modern mid-range professional cards, but it cannot touch the MI300X's league.

The biggest win for the MI300X is the sheer margin: 263.7% is not a small edge but a generational leap. The biggest win for the Quadro is its existence: it still maintains a 93rd percentile ranking, and its performance is within 5% of current W7600 and CMP 40HX cards, making it a viable option for legacy or budget applications.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every significant specification:

• Process node: 5 nm (AMD) vs 16 nm (NVIDIA)
• Transistors: 153,000 million vs 15,300 million
• Die size: 1017 mm² vs 610 mm²
• Transistor density: 150.4M / mm² vs 25.1M / mm²
• Base clock: 1000 MHz vs 1304 MHz
• Boost clock: 2100 MHz vs 1443 MHz
• Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) vs 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective)
• Memory size: 192 GB vs 16 GB
• Memory type: HBM3 vs HBM2
• Memory bus: 8192 bit vs 4096 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s vs 732.2 GB/s
• Shading units: 19456 vs 3584
• Texture mapping units: 1216 vs 224
• ROPs: 0 vs 96
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s vs 138.5 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 2553.6 GTexel/s vs 323.2 GTexel/s
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS vs 10.34 TFLOPS
• FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 20.69 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 750 W vs 235 W
• Slot width: OAM Module vs Dual-slot
• Power connectors: None vs 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 1150 W vs 550 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: No outputs vs 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: N/A vs 12 (12_1)
• OpenGL support: N/A vs 4.6
• Vulkan support: N/A vs 1.3
• Dimensions: The Quadro is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high; the MI300X has no recorded dimensions
• Release date: 2023-12-05 vs 2016-09-30
• Production status: not recorded vs end-of-life
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct vs Quadro Maxwell
• Successor: none recorded vs Quadro Volta

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, which is 263.7% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro GP100's 87,445.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to its closest rival, the NVIDIA H200 NVL?

A: The H200 NVL has an average score of 334,891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X's 317,994, so the AMD card is the second-place in that comparison.

Q: Is the Quadro GP100 still competitive with modern cards?

A: Yes, it sits at the 93rd percentile and its score of 87,445 is within 4.6% of the RTX A4500 (91,671) and within 0.4% of the Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108), though it is the weakest of its four recorded rivals.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The MI300X has 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro has 732.2 GB/s, making the AMD card roughly 7.3 times faster in memory throughput.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD MI300X has no display outputs and is not capable of rendering graphics.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, while the Quadro GP100 delivers 10.34 TFLOPS, so the AMD card is 7.9 times higher in single-precision compute.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. The AMD Instinct MI300X is for applications that demand maximum compute throughput, massive memory capacity, and the highest possible OpenCL score. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 263.7%, sits at the 100th percentile, and has 192 GB of memory for datasets that would not fit in the Quadro's 16 GB. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth make it the choice for AI training, scientific computing, and large-scale data analytics. The lack of any display output or graphics API confirms it is a pure compute accelerator, intended for server racks, not desktops.

The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 is for different needs. Its 93rd percentile and 87,445 score are respectable for a 2016 card, and it still trades blows with modern mid-range professional GPUs. With 16 GB of HBM2, 138.5 GPixel/s pixel rate, and full DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 support, it can handle professional visualization, CAD, and compute workloads that require a display output. Its 235 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU make it far easier to integrate than the 750 W OAM module.

The data is unambiguous: anyone who prioritizes raw number-crunching should choose the MI300X. Anyone who needs a GPU with graphics output, legacy software compatibility, and lower power demands would have to look at the Quadro GP100, but be aware that it will be outperformed by the AMD card in every compute benchmark recorded. The 263.7% performance gap is the final word.