AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, delivers a decisive result. The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 points, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile scores 105,307 points. This represents a 202% advantage for the AMD part, meaning the MI300X is roughly three times faster in this compute-oriented test. The margin is not close, and it reflects the fundamental positioning of these two accelerators rather than any minor clock or driver optimization.

Looking at the broader database context, the MI300X sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs, which indicates it outperforms every other recorded GPU in the database in at least one benchmark. Its nearest rivals reinforce this standing: the NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891 (5% higher), the NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482 (8% higher), while the NVIDIA L40S scores 295,763 (7.5% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287,237 (10.7% lower). The MI300X is therefore in the top tier of data-center accelerators, trading blows with the very fastest NVIDIA parts.

The RTX A4500 Mobile, by contrast, holds the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score across OpenCL and Vulkan is 91,134, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 105,307 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 76,960. Its nearest rivals are all much closer in performance: the desktop NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 91,671 (just 0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 scores 92,466 (1.4% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87,445 (4.2% lower), and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 scores 87,108 (4.6% lower). This clustering shows the mobile part is competitive with mid-range professional GPUs, but it is not in the same performance class as the MI300X.

The delta of 202% in OpenCL is the only direct comparison available, but it is consistent with the architectural gap between a 750 W OAM accelerator and a 140 W mobile GPU. The data shows a clear hierarchy: the MI300X is an extreme high-end compute part, while the RTX A4500 Mobile is a capable but far less powerful mobile workstation solution.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divergence between these two parts is stark. The AMD Instinct MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile uses the Ampere architecture on an 8 nm Samsung process. This process gap alone explains a substantial portion of the performance difference, as the MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The RTX A4500 Mobile contains just 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, with a density of 44.4 million per mm². The MI300X therefore has nearly nine times the transistor count and over 3.4 times the die area.

Memory configurations are equally divergent. The MI300X ships with 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A4500 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s. The bandwidth advantage for the MI300X is roughly tenfold, which is critical for memory-bound compute workloads. The RTX A4500 Mobile does have a higher effective memory clock at 16 Gbps versus 5.2 Gbps for the MI300X, but the massive bus width of the AMD part overwhelms that advantage.

Compute resources also differ by an order of magnitude. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, while the RTX A4500 Mobile has 5,888 shading units and 184 TMUs. The MI300X also has no ROPs (0 MPixel/s pixel rate), reflecting its compute-only design, whereas the RTX A4500 Mobile has 96 ROPs and a pixel rate of 144.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors the MI300X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 276.0 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 throughput are both 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300X, while the RTX A4500 Mobile delivers 17.66 TFLOPS in both precisions. The RTX A4500 Mobile does include 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores, features the MI300X lacks entirely, but those are graphics and AI acceleration features not reflected in the OpenCL benchmark.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the RTX A4500 Mobile runs at 930 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the MI300X's massive width of execution units produces far higher throughput. The power envelope is also vastly different: the MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and requires a 1150 W suggested PSU, while the RTX A4500 Mobile has a 140 W TDP. The MI300X uses an OAM module slot width with no display outputs, while the RTX A4500 Mobile is portable-device-dependent for displays and supports PCIe 4.0 x16 versus the MI300X's PCIe 5.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins the only direct benchmark comparison, and it wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 202% lead demonstrates that for raw compute throughput, the MI300X is in a different league. This makes it the clear choice for data-center scale workloads such as large model training, scientific simulation, or any task that can fully utilize 192 GB of HBM3 memory and 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. Its 100th percentile ranking among all GPUs means that in the database's recorded measurements, no other GPU surpasses it overall, even though specific rivals like the NVIDIA B200 and H200 NVL score slightly higher in average terms.

The RTX A4500 Mobile wins in areas not captured by the OpenCL score. It has 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor operations that the MI300X cannot perform. It also has display outputs (portable device dependent) and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI300X has no display outputs and no graphics API support. For mobile workstation use cases, such as on-site 3D rendering, CAD visualization, or AI inference on a laptop, the RTX A4500 Mobile is the only viable option of the two. Its 16 GB GDDR6 memory is far smaller but still adequate for many professional graphics tasks, and its 140 W TDP makes it feasible for a portable chassis.

In terms of efficiency, the data provides a rough comparison. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 at 750 W, which is about 0.109 TFLOPS per watt. The RTX A4500 Mobile delivers 17.66 TFLOPS at 140 W, which is about 0.126 TFLOPS per watt. The mobile part is slightly more efficient in raw FP32 per watt, but the MI300X offers 4.6 times the absolute throughput. For users who need maximum compute in a fixed power budget, the RTX A4500 Mobile is the more efficient choice; for users who need maximum absolute performance, the MI300X is unmatched.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications differ in nearly every category. The MI300X uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the RTX A4500 Mobile uses an 8 nm process from Samsung. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 17,400 million, and die sizes are 1017 mm² versus 392 mm². The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and boost of 2100 MHz; the RTX A4500 Mobile has 930 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory clock effective rates are 5.2 Gbps for the MI300X and 16 Gbps for the RTX A4500 Mobile.

Memory capacity differs by 176 GB: 192 GB of HBM3 versus 16 GB of GDDR6. Bus widths are 8192 bit versus 256 bit, and memory bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Shading units are 19,456 versus 5,888; TMUs are 1,216 versus 184; ROPs are 0 versus 96. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores, while the RTX A4500 Mobile has 46 and 184 respectively. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI300X and 144.0 GPixel/s for the RTX A4500 Mobile. Texture rates are 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 276.0 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are 81.72 TFLOPS versus 17.66 TFLOPS.

TDP is 750 W versus 140 W. The MI300X uses an OAM module slot, while the RTX A4500 Mobile has no specified slot width. Both have no power connectors listed. The suggested PSU is 1150 W for the MI300X; none is listed for the RTX A4500 Mobile. Bus interfaces are PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are none for the MI300X versus portable device dependent for the RTX A4500 Mobile. API support differs: the MI300X has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, while the RTX A4500 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are December 5, 2023 for the MI300X and March 21, 2022 for the RTX A4500 Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile scores 105,307. The MI300X leads by 202%.

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

A: The MI300X is 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) and 8% behind the NVIDIA B200 (345,482), but it is 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) and 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237).

Q: How does the RTX A4500 Mobile compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX A4500 Mobile's average score is 91,134. It is 0.6% behind the desktop NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671) and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92,466), while it is 4.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445) and 4.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108).

Q: Does the RTX A4500 Mobile support ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: Yes, it has 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores. The MI300X has no ray tracing or tensor cores, as it is designed for compute-only workloads.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX A4500 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can either GPU output to a display?

A: The MI300X has no display outputs. The RTX A4500 Mobile has display outputs that are portable device dependent, meaning it relies on the host device for display connectivity.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on use case. The AMD Instinct MI300X is the overwhelming choice for pure compute performance. Its 202% OpenCL lead over the RTX A4500 Mobile, combined with its 100th percentile ranking, 192 GB of HBM3 memory, and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, makes it a data-center class accelerator. It sits alongside the NVIDIA H200 NVL and B200 in performance, trailing them by only 5% and 8% respectively, and it beats the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 7.5% and 10.7%. Anyone running large-scale compute workloads that can use its memory bandwidth and throughput should choose the MI300X without hesitation.

The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile is the correct pick for professional graphics and mobile workflows. Its 93rd percentile ranking, 46 ray tracing cores, 184 tensor cores, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 make it a versatile workstation GPU. Its 140 W TDP allows it to operate in a laptop or compact mobile workstation, which the 750 W MI300X cannot do. Its 16 GB GDDR6 memory is sufficient for many professional rendering and visualization tasks, and its performance is closely matched with desktop-class rivals like the RTX A4500 (0.6% difference).

There is no scenario where the RTX A4500 Mobile outperforms the MI300X in raw compute, and there is no scenario where the MI300X can replace the RTX A4500 Mobile as a graphics-capable mobile solution. The verdict is therefore simple: if the workload is compute-heavy and power and portability are not constraints, the MI300X wins by a wide margin. If the workload requires graphics APIs, ray tracing, tensor cores, or mobility, the RTX A4500 Mobile is the only option that fits.