AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains only one recorded performance score for the AMD Instinct MI300X, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has no recorded benchmark entries. This creates an asymmetric comparison: the MI300X has an average benchmark score of 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Switch 2 GPU sits at the 50th percentile with no measured results.

The MI300X's single benchmark result positions it against several high-end NVIDIA accelerators. The database shows the MI300X trails the NVIDIA B200 by 8 percent, with the B200 scoring 345,482. It also sits 5 percent behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL, which scores 334,891. Against the NVIDIA L40S, the MI300X leads by 7.5 percent, as the L40S records 295,763. The gap widens further versus the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation, where the MI300X is 10.7 percent ahead of that card's 287,237 score.

These deltas place the MI300X in a competitive mid-point among flagship accelerators: it outperforms the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada Generation, but falls short of the B200 and H200 NVL. The Switch 2 GPU, lacking any benchmark entries, cannot be positioned within this hierarchy based on measured data. Its 50th percentile ranking is derived from its specification profile rather than direct testing, which limits any head-to-head performance conclusions to the MI300X's rivalry set.

The MI300X's raw throughput figures align with its benchmark standing. It delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and the same 81.72 TFLOPS in FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. Texture rate reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s. In contrast, the Switch 2 GPU provides 4.301 TFLOPS of FP32 and 8.602 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, along with a texture rate of 67.20 GTexel/s. The MI300X's FP32 output is roughly 19 times higher than the Switch 2 GPU's figure, and its texture throughput is about 38 times greater, though these comparisons rely on specification data rather than shared benchmark runs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has a recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has no benchmark entries, resulting in an average score of 0 and a 50th percentile ranking.

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

A: The MI300X trails the NVIDIA B200 by 8 percent and the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5 percent. It leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5 percent and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7 percent.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory on a 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Switch 2 GPU uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MI300X has 19,456 shading units. The Switch 2 GPU has 1,536 shading units.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: The MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The Switch 2 GPU includes 12 ray tracing cores and 48 tensor cores.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested power supply of 1150 W. The Switch 2 GPU has a TDP of 40 W.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI300X is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The architecture is designed for compute acceleration, which is reflected in its lack of display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed, relying instead on its massive shading unit count of 19,456 to drive FP32 and FP16 throughput.

The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU uses the Ampere architecture with the GA10B chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. Its die size is 200 mm², with transistor count listed as unknown. The Switch 2 GPU is a console-oriented part, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It includes 12 ray tracing cores and 48 tensor cores, features absent from the MI300X's specification sheet. The Switch 2 GPU also has 16 ROPs, whereas the MI300X lists 0 ROPs, and its pixel rate of 22.40 GPixel/s contrasts sharply with the MI300X's 0 MPixel/s.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MI300X pairs an 8192-bit bus with HBM3 memory to reach 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the Switch 2 GPU uses a 128-bit bus with LPDDR5X memory for 102.4 GB/s. The clock strategies also diverge: the MI300X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, with memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Switch 2 GPU operates at a 561 MHz base and 1400 MHz boost, with memory at 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). The MI300X's boost clock is 50 percent higher than the Switch 2 GPU's boost clock, though the Switch 2 GPU's memory clock delivers a higher effective data rate per pin.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The MI300X is an OAM module with no power connectors and no display outputs, while the Switch 2 GPU measures 272 mm in length, 116 mm in height, and 14 mm in width, and is marked as Active in production status. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16 as its bus interface; the Switch 2 GPU has no bus interface listed. The MI300X's release date is December 5, 2023, and the Switch 2 GPU's release date is June 4, 2025.

Clock speeds: the MI300X's base clock is 1000 MHz versus 561 MHz for the Switch 2 GPU, and its boost clock is 2100 MHz versus 1400 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the MI300X versus 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective) for the Switch 2 GPU. Memory capacity is 192 GB versus 12 GB, bus width is 8192 bit versus 128 bit, and bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

Shading units number 19,456 versus 1,536; texture mapping units number 1,216 versus 48; ROPs are 0 versus 16. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores; the Switch 2 GPU has 12. The MI300X has no tensor cores; the Switch 2 GPU has 48. Pixel rates are 0 MPixel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s; texture rates are 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 4.301 TFLOPS; FP16 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 750 W versus 40 W, and the suggested power supply for the MI300X is 1150 W, with none listed for the Switch 2 GPU. The MI300X's process node is 5 nm versus 8 nm, and its die size is 1017 mm² versus 200 mm². The MI300X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; the Switch 2 GPU has no predecessor listed. The Switch 2 GPU has a launch MSRP of 449 USD; the MI300X has no launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 81.72 TFLOPS and matching FP16 output of 81.72 TFLOPS position it for dense numerical workloads, and its 192 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth supports large models and datasets that would exceed the Switch 2 GPU's 12 GB LPDDR5X capacity. The MI300X's 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units give it a structural advantage in massively parallel tasks. Benchmark data confirms its standing: a 317,994 Geekbench OpenCL score in the 100th percentile, with double-digit leads over the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation and a 7.5 percent advantage over the L40S.

The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU wins in power efficiency and feature completeness for graphics-oriented workloads. Its 40 W TDP is 710 W lower than the MI300X's 750 W TDP, making it suitable for constrained power envelopes. The Switch 2 GPU includes 12 ray tracing cores and 48 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI inference features that the MI300X lacks entirely. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support, along with 16 ROPs and a 22.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, make it a functional graphics processor, whereas the MI300X has no display outputs and no graphics API support. The Switch 2 GPU's smaller 200 mm² die and 8 nm process also reflect a design optimized for compact integration rather than absolute performance.

The database records no shared benchmark results between these two GPUs, so direct performance comparisons rely on specification analysis. The MI300X's 100th percentile ranking and its rivalry data against NVIDIA's data-center accelerators establish it as a top-tier compute part. The Switch 2 GPU's 50th percentile ranking, with no measured scores, indicates it occupies a mid-range position among all GPUs, but its architectural features point to a role in console-class rendering and local AI processing rather than high-throughput scientific computing. Each GPU wins in its intended domain: the MI300X for server-scale computation, the Switch 2 GPU for low-power graphics and ray-traced workloads.