AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct head-to-head comparison between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, using Geekbench OpenCL as the workload. The AMD Instinct MI300X delivers a score of 317,994, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 124,812. This results in a delta of 154.8% in favor of the AMD part, meaning it more than doubles the NVIDIA card's output in this specific test.

This is not a narrow victory. The AMD Instinct MI300X sits at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning no other recorded GPU outperforms it in aggregate benchmark scoring. Its average benchmark score is 317,994, which is the same as its OpenCL result, since that is the only recorded test for this part. In contrast, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation sits at the 95th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 117,088 across two recorded tests: 124,812 in OpenCL and 109,364 in Vulkan.

Context from the nearest rivals section reinforces the magnitude of the AMD card's lead. The AMD Instinct MI300X is 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (score 287,237) and 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S (score 295,763). It trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL (score 334,891) by 5% and the NVIDIA B200 (score 345,482) by 8%. These are all data center or high-end workstation accelerators, yet the MI300X outpaces most of them. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, by comparison, sits in a much lower performance tier. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GB10 (score 117,393, delta -0.3%), the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (score 118,976, delta -1.6%), the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (score 114,395, delta 2.4%), and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (score 113,944, delta 2.8%). The RTX 4000 SFF is essentially at parity with those parts, all within a range of roughly 3% either way.

The delta between the two headline products is stark: the MI300X leads by 193,182 points in raw OpenCL score. The NVIDIA part's Vulkan score of 109,364 is lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting the gap could widen further if the AMD part had a Vulkan result recorded, though no such data exists in the database. The wins tally reflects this asymmetry: the AMD Instinct MI300X wins 1 benchmark, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins 0.

The Verdict

The data indicates the AMD Instinct MI300X is categorically superior in raw compute performance. With a 154.8% lead in the only shared benchmark, and a 100th percentile ranking, it is the clear choice for workloads that prioritize maximum throughput. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, while respectable at the 95th percentile, operates in a completely different performance class. Its average score of 117,088 is roughly 37% of the AMD card's 317,994.

The intended use cases diverge sharply. The AMD Instinct MI300X is an OAM module with no display outputs, a 750 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. It is designed for server racks and compute clusters, not for a desk. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, in contrast, is a dual-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with a 70 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It includes 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suitable for workstations where visual output is required. The choice between these two is not about performance per watt or price, but about the physical and architectural context of the deployment.

For a data center operator running large-scale inference or training, the MI300X is the only sensible option on the basis of raw compute. For a workstation user who needs a compact card with display outputs and moderate power draw, the RTX 4000 SFF is the functional choice, but it cannot compete on raw benchmark scores. The database shows that the MI300X is in the top percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 4000 SFF is in the 95th, which is still strong but far from the top.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins in every recorded category. It has a higher OpenCL score (317,994 versus 124,812), a higher average benchmark score (317,994 versus 117,088), and a higher percentile ranking (100 versus 95). It also wins the only head-to-head test by a margin of 154.8%. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has no recorded wins in any benchmark comparison.

However, the NVIDIA card wins in categories that are not directly benchmarked. It has a Vulkan score of 109,364, which is not present for the AMD part, indicating API support that the MI300X lacks (the MI300X lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the RTX 4000 SFF supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4). The NVIDIA card also has display outputs, which the AMD part does not have at all. The RTX 4000 SFF has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 99.84 GPixel/s, while the MI300X has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. This makes the NVIDIA card the only choice for any workload requiring rasterization or display output.

The NVIDIA card also offers ray tracing and tensor cores (48 and 192, respectively), which the AMD part does not list. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, versus 6,144 shading units and 192 TMUs for the NVIDIA card, but the NVIDIA card's additional fixed-function hardware for ray tracing and tensor operations gives it capabilities beyond raw FP32 compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 124,812. The AMD part leads by 154.8%.

Q: How does the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is essentially at parity. The NVIDIA GB10 scores 117,393 (delta -0.3%), the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 118,976 (delta -1.6%), the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB scores 114,395 (delta 2.4%), and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile scores 113,944 (delta 2.8%).

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI300X support any display outputs?

A: No. The database lists "No outputs" for the MI300X, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

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

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking in the database?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X is at the 100th percentile, meaning it ranks above all other GPUs. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is at the 95th percentile.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has a TDP of 70 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Instinct MI300X is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Aqua Vanjaram, and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace architecture, chip AD104, and belongs to the Workstation Ada generation, with a predecessor in Workstation Ampere and a successor in Blackwell PRO W.

The process nodes are identical: both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. However, the transistor counts differ enormously. The MI300X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The RTX 4000 SFF has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a density of 121.8 million per mm². The MI300X is a massive chip, more than three times the die area of the NVIDIA part.

Clock speeds also differ. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The RTX 4000 SFF has a base clock of 720 MHz and a boost clock of 1560 MHz, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The AMD part runs at higher clocks overall, though the NVIDIA card has faster effective memory speed per pin.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the AMD part. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, while the RTX 4000 SFF has 6,144 shading units and 192 TMUs. The MI300X has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, whereas the RTX 4000 SFF has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 99.84 GPixel/s. Texture rate is also vastly different: 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the AMD part versus 299.5 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part.

FP32 and FP16 performance are both listed as 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) for the MI300X, while the RTX 4000 SFF delivers 19.17 TFLOPS in both. The AMD part is roughly 4.3 times faster in raw floating-point throughput. The NVIDIA card adds 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores, features that are not listed for the AMD part, suggesting a difference in workload focus: the MI300X is a pure compute accelerator, while the RTX 4000 SFF includes hardware for graphics and AI acceleration.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The MI300X uses HBM3 with 192 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF uses GDDR6 with 20 GB capacity, a 160-bit bus, and 280.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part has 9.6 times the memory capacity and roughly 19 times the bandwidth, though the NVIDIA card's memory runs at a higher effective speed per pin (14 Gbps versus 5.2 Gbps).

The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX 4000 SFF. Physical form factors are also distinct: the MI300X is an OAM module with no power connectors, while the RTX 4000 SFF is a dual-slot card with no power connectors either, but it measures 168 mm by 69 mm. The MI300X has no display outputs, while the RTX 4000 SFF has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support is absent for the AMD part (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan all listed as N/A), while the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.