AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Instinct MI300X compare to the NVIDIA RTX A4500 in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The MI300X scores 317994, while the RTX A4500 scores 141837. This gives the MI300X a 124.2% advantage in this specific test, the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: Where does each GPU rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X sits at the 100th percentile, meaning it outperforms every other GPU in the database. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 is at the 93rd percentile, placing it in the top tier but below the MI300X.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the MI300X based on average benchmark scores?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA B200 at 345482 (8% ahead of the MI300X), the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334891 (5% ahead), the NVIDIA L40S at 295763 (7.5% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation at 287237 (10.7% behind).

Q: How does the RTX A4500 compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The RTX A4500's average benchmark score is 91671. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 is 0.9% behind at 92466, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile is 0.6% behind at 91134. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 trails by 4.8% at 87445, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 trails by 5.2% at 87108.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The MI300X uses a 5 nm process with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4M transistors per mm². The RTX A4500 uses an 8 nm process with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, yielding 45.1M transistors per mm².

Q: What is the production status of each product?

A: The RTX A4500 is marked as end-of-life in the database, with its successor listed as Workstation Ada. The MI300X has no production status listed, though its release date is recorded as December 5, 2023.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300X is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture using a chip design called Aqua Vanjaram, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. This is a compute-optimized architecture with no display outputs and no graphics APIs, reflecting its purpose as an accelerator for data center workloads. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 uses the Ampere architecture with a GA102 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This is a workstation-class GPU with full graphics capabilities, including 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The transistor counts present a stark contrast. The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors onto a 1017 mm² die, while the RTX A4500 contains 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die. The density figures amplify this difference: 150.4M transistors per mm² for the MI300X versus 45.1M per mm² for the RTX A4500. This reflects the advanced 5 nm process node that allows the MI300X to integrate far more logic into a larger package.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally between the two. The MI300X features 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A4500 has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, providing 640.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI300X's memory bandwidth is more than eight times that of the RTX A4500, a critical factor for data-intensive workloads. The memory clock speeds also differ: the MI300X runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the RTX A4500 runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

The shading resources show a significant scaling difference. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, which aligns with its compute-first design. The RTX A4500 has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, plus 56 ray tracing cores and 224 tensor cores. The RTX A4500 also has a pixel rate of 158.4 GPixel/s, while the MI300X records 0 MPixel/s, confirming the latter has no rasterization pipeline.

Clock speeds take opposite approaches. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The RTX A4500 has a base clock of 1050 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz. The MI300X boosts higher, but the RTX A4500 has a higher base clock. The MI300X's texture rate reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 369.6 GTexel/s for the RTX A4500, and its FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 23.65 TFLOPS.

Power delivery further distinguishes the designs. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W with no power connectors, as it uses an OAM Module form factor and relies on a 1150 W suggested power supply. The RTX A4500 is a dual-slot card with a 200 W TDP, a single 8-pin power connector, and a 550 W suggested PSU. The bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX A4500.

The Verdict

The data points to two entirely different product categories. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a data center accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics APIs, and no rasterization hardware. Its 100th percentile ranking and 317994 Geekbench OpenCL score place it at the absolute top of the database. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 is a workstation GPU with full display and graphics capabilities, sitting at the 93rd percentile with an average score of 91671.

Users who need compute throughput for large-scale parallel workloads should choose the MI300X. Its 192 GB of HBM3 memory, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 performance provide overwhelming advantages in raw compute. The 124.2% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test quantifies this gap: the MI300X delivers more than double the score of the RTX A4500 in that workload.

Users who require graphics output, ray tracing, or rasterization should choose the RTX A4500. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, has 56 ray tracing cores and 224 tensor cores, and provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The MI300X offers none of these features, as its APIs are marked N/A and it has no display outputs.

The RTX A4500 also holds an advantage in power efficiency per unit of compute relative to its TDP. Its 200 W TDP is 550 W lower than the MI300X's 750 W, yet it still delivers 23.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The MI300X achieves 81.72 TFLOPS but requires significantly more power and a specialized OAM module slot, which may limit deployment to servers designed for such accelerators.

The production status adds another consideration. The RTX A4500 is end-of-life, with its successor already listed as Workstation Ada. The MI300X has no production status listed, suggesting ongoing availability. For organizations planning long-term deployments, the MI300X may have a longer procurement horizon, while the RTX A4500 represents a mature platform at the end of its cycle.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category in the database.

The process node separates them: the MI300X uses 5 nm TSMC fabrication, while the RTX A4500 uses 8 nm Samsung. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 28,300 million, and die sizes are 1017 mm² versus 628 mm². Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI300X and 45.1M per mm² for the RTX A4500.

Clock specifications diverge in both base and boost frequencies. The MI300X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The RTX A4500 runs at 1050 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective for the MI300X and 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for the RTX A4500.

Memory configurations are vastly different. The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX A4500 has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 640.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources differ substantially. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The RTX A4500 has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, plus 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores. Pixel rates are 0 MPixel/s for the MI300X and 158.4 GPixel/s for the RTX A4500. Texture rates are 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 369.6 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300X and 23.65 TFLOPS for the RTX A4500.

Power and physical characteristics also differ. The MI300X has a 750 W TDP, uses an OAM Module slot, has no power connectors, and requires a 1150 W suggested PSU. The RTX A4500 has a 200 W TDP, uses a dual-slot form factor, has one 8-pin connector, and requires a 550 W suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX A4500.

Display capabilities separate the two clearly. The MI300X has no display outputs, while the RTX A4500 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX A4500 also has physical dimensions of 267 mm length and 112 mm height, while the MI300X has no recorded dimensions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317994, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 141837. This yields a delta of 124.2% in favor of the MI300X, marking the AI accelerator as more than double the performance of the workstation GPU in this compute-oriented test.

This single result aligns with the broader benchmark data. The MI300X holds a 100th percentile ranking across all GPUs, meaning no other product in the database scores higher. Its average benchmark score is 317994, identical to its Geekbench OpenCL score, indicating that this test is the only recorded benchmark for the MI300X. The RTX A4500, by contrast, has an average score of 91671, which is pulled down by its other benchmark results. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 141837 is the highest of its three recorded tests, followed by 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 3196 and Geekbench Vulkan at 129980.

The nearest rivals to the MI300X provide context for its dominance. The NVIDIA B200 scores 345482, which is 8% higher than the MI300X. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334891, 5% higher. The MI300X leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% (295763) and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7% (287237). This places the MI300X in a competitive cluster at the top of the database, slightly behind the newest NVIDIA accelerators but ahead of the previous generation.

The RTX A4500's nearest rivals show a much tighter grouping. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 scores 92466, just 0.9% higher than the RTX A4500. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile scores 91134, 0.6% lower. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87445, 4.8% lower, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 scores 87108, 5.2% lower. This clustering indicates that the RTX A4500 sits near the top of its performance tier, with only marginal differences separating it from close competitors.

The wins tally reflects the one-sided nature of the recorded comparison. The MI300X claims one win in the head-to-head benchmarks, while the RTX A4500 has zero wins. This does not imply the RTX A4500 is without merit, as it holds advantages in graphics-specific features, power consumption, and form factor compatibility that are not captured in the compute benchmark. The data shows the MI300X as the clear leader in raw OpenCL compute performance, while the RTX A4500 excels in areas outside the recorded benchmark scope.