AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI300X and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell. The two cards occupy entirely different benchmark ecosystems, with the MI300X submitting a single Geekbench OpenCL score and the RTX PRO 4000 submitting results across 3DMark, PassMark, and Geekbench Vulkan tests.

The MI300X records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317994, placing it at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA B200 at 345482 (8% higher), the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334891 (5% higher), the NVIDIA L40S at 295763 (7.5% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation at 287237 (10.7% lower). This places the MI300X in an elite tier, trailing only the B200 and H200 among its closest recorded competitors.

The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell shows a different competitive picture. Its average benchmark score of 27135 places it at the 72nd percentile. Its nearest rivals are tight: the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT scores 27425 (1.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile scores 27435 (1.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 scores 27565 (1.6% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 26683 (1.7% lower). The spread across these four rivals is only 3.3 percentage points, indicating the RTX PRO 4000 sits in a densely packed performance cluster.

Looking at the RTX PRO 4000's individual benchmark results, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4648 and the Geekbench Vulkan score of 194168 represent its strongest synthetic results. The PassMark suite shows a more fragmented picture: DirectX 9 scores 354, DirectX 10 scores 173, DirectX 11 scores 276, DirectX 12 scores 97, G2D scores 1265, G3D scores 28427, and GPU compute scores 14805. The DirectX 12 result of 97 stands out as notably lower than the DirectX 11 result of 276, suggesting workload-specific behavior rather than a simple linear scaling across API generations.

The MI300X's single OpenCL score of 317994 versus the RTX PRO 4000's average of 27135 does not constitute a fair comparison, as they come from different test suites and measure different capabilities. The MI300X's OpenCL result reflects its compute-oriented design, while the RTX PRO 4000's scores span rasterization, compute, and API-specific tests.

The Verdict

The data indicates these are fundamentally different products with different intended workloads. The MI300X achieves the 100th percentile in the database, meaning no recorded GPU scores higher in its benchmark set. The RTX PRO 4000 sits at the 72nd percentile, firmly in the upper-middle tier of the database.

The MI300X's nearest rivals are all data center accelerators: the B200, H200 NVL, L40S, and RTX 6000 Ada Generation. Its OpenCL score of 317994 exceeds the L40S by 7.5% and the RTX 6000 Ada by 10.7%, while trailing the H200 NVL by 5% and the B200 by 8%. This positions the MI300X as a high-end compute accelerator that competes directly with NVIDIA's top data center parts.

The RTX PRO 4000's nearest rivals are a different class entirely: desktop and mobile GPUs like the RX 6700 XT, RTX 4070 Mobile, RTX 3090, and the workstation-oriented RTX A4000. Its average score of 27135 sits within 1.7% of all four rivals, showing it delivers performance comparable to a range of established GPUs. The RTX A4000, a previous-generation workstation card, scores 1.7% lower, indicating the RTX PRO 4000 provides a modest generational uplift over that predecessor.

From the recorded data, the MI300X is the clear choice for compute-heavy deployments where OpenCL throughput and massive memory capacity matter. The RTX PRO 4000 is the choice for workstation tasks requiring API support, display outputs, and a compact single-slot form factor, though its raw compute scores trail the MI300X by a wide margin.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. The RTX PRO 4000 uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB203 chip, also on TSMC's 5 nm process. Both cards share the same process node and foundry, but the chip designs diverge substantially.

The MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The RTX PRO 4000 contains 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, with a density of 120.6M per mm². The MI300X's die is 2.7 times larger by area and holds 3.4 times more transistors, reflecting its data center orientation toward massive parallel compute.

Shader configuration differs markedly. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, with a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The RTX PRO 4000 has 8,960 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 197.3 GPixel/s. The MI300X dedicates no silicon to rasterization output, while the RTX PRO 4000 includes full rasterization capabilities. The MI300X also reports no ray tracing cores or tensor cores in the database, while the RTX PRO 4000 includes 70 RT cores and 280 tensor cores.

Texture rates reflect the compute focus of each card. The MI300X achieves 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the RTX PRO 4000 achieves 575.4 GTexel/s. The MI300X's texture rate is 4.4 times higher, consistent with its larger TMU count.

API support separates the two clearly. The MI300X lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The RTX PRO 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This difference reflects the MI300X's compute-only design versus the RTX PRO 4000's workstation graphics role.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI300X uses HBM3 with 192 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX PRO 4000 uses GDDR7 with 24 GB capacity, a 192-bit bus, and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI300X provides 8 times the capacity and 7.9 times the bandwidth.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds differ between the two cards. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The RTX PRO 4000 has a base clock of 1230 MHz and a boost clock of 2055 MHz. The RTX PRO 4000 starts at a higher base clock but the MI300X boosts slightly higher. Memory clocks also differ: the MI300X runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the RTX PRO 4000 runs at 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective.

Compute throughput diverges sharply. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The RTX PRO 4000 delivers 36.83 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16. The MI300X provides 2.2 times the FP32 throughput.

Power characteristics are dramatically different. The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W and uses an OAM module slot width with no power connectors. The RTX PRO 4000 has a TDP of 140 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W, uses a single-slot form factor, and requires one 16-pin power connector. The RTX PRO 4000 draws 18.7% of the MI300X's power budget while delivering 45.1% of its FP32 throughput.

Physical and interface specifications differ. The MI300X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface and has no display outputs. The RTX PRO 4000 also uses PCIe 5.0 x16 but provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. The RTX PRO 4000 measures 241 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm. The MI300X has no recorded dimensions.

Release timing separates the products by over a year. The MI300X launched on 2023-12-05 with the Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. The RTX PRO 4000 launched on 2025-03-17 with Workstation Ada as its predecessor. The RTX PRO 4000 has an Active production status, while the MI300X has no recorded status.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X records an average benchmark score of 317994, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell records 27135. The MI300X sits at the 100th percentile in the database, while the RTX PRO 4000 sits at the 72nd percentile.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to NVIDIA's H200 NVL and B200?

A: The MI300X scores 5% lower than the H200 NVL (334891) and 8% lower than the B200 (345482) in its OpenCL benchmark. It outperforms the L40S (295763) by 7.5% and the RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287237) by 10.7%.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX PRO 4000 uses 24 GB of GDDR7 with a 192-bit bus and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports display outputs?

A: The RTX PRO 4000 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. The MI300X has no display outputs and lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI300X has a 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W and uses an OAM module slot. The RTX PRO 4000 has a 140 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 300 W, uses a single-slot form factor, and requires one 16-pin power connector.

Q: How does the RTX PRO 4000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX PRO 4000's average score of 27135 is 1.1% lower than the RX 6700 XT (27425), 1.1% lower than the RTX 4070 Mobile (27435), 1.6% lower than the RTX 3090 (27565), and 1.7% higher than the RTX A4000 (26683).

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 performance is 2.2 times the RTX PRO 4000's 36.83 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is 4.4 times higher. Its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s is 7.9 times higher, and its 192 GB capacity is 8 times larger. The MI300X's nearest rivals are all data center accelerators, confirming its position in that segment.

The RTX PRO 4000 wins in workstation flexibility. It provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 70 RT cores and 280 tensor cores for ray tracing and AI acceleration. Its pixel rate of 197.3 GPixel/s, enabled by 96 ROPs, allows rasterization workloads that the MI300X cannot handle. The MI300X has no ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

The RTX PRO 4000 wins decisively on power efficiency. Its 140 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU contrasts with the MI300X's 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU. The RTX PRO 4000 achieves 45.1% of the MI300X's FP32 throughput while drawing 18.7% of its power budget. Its single-slot, 241 mm form factor with one 16-pin connector also makes it far easier to integrate into standard workstations.

The MI300X wins on transistor scale and density. Its 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die exceed the RTX PRO 4000's 45,600 million on 378 mm². The MI300X's transistor density of 150.4M per mm² also surpasses the RTX PRO 4000's 120.6M per mm².

In benchmark percentile terms, the MI300X at 100th percentile versus the RTX PRO 4000 at 72nd percentile shows the MI300X has no recorded GPU above it, while the RTX PRO 4000 sits among a dense cluster of comparable GPUs. The RTX PRO 4000's tight rival spread, within 1.7% of four different cards, suggests it competes in a crowded performance band, while the MI300X's nearest rivals are spread across a 18.7 percentage point range, indicating less direct competition at that tier.