AMD Instinct MI308X vs AMD Radeon 760M Comparison

The Verdict

The database places these two AMD processors at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum. The AMD Instinct MI308X is a compute accelerator with a 50th percentile standing among all GPUs, yet it holds no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The AMD Radeon 760M, an integrated graphics processor, sits at the 35th percentile with an average benchmark score of 6019 points. The data shows no direct head-to-head tests exist, so the comparison relies on architectural specifications and the 760M's recorded results.

The MI308X targets compute workloads that do not use traditional graphics benchmarks. Its 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 5.32 TB/s of memory bandwidth position it for data center tasks, while the 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS and uses system shared memory. The 760M is the only one of the two with any benchmark presence, meaning any quantitative performance comparison must come from its nearest rivals: the AMD Radeon RX 6400 sits 0.3% ahead, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M is 0.3% ahead, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is 0.4% ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 trails by 0.5%. These margins are minimal, indicating the 760M performs near parity with these older or lower-tier discrete cards.

For users choosing between these two, the recorded data supports a clear split. The MI308X is a server accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 750 W power draw. The 760M is an integrated part with DirectX 12 Ultimate support, Vulkan 1.4, and a 15 W power envelope. The database shows no scenario where the MI308X appears in a benchmark, so any choice between them depends entirely on the workload class: compute acceleration versus integrated graphics for everyday rendering.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M wins every category where measurements exist. Its benchmark suite covers DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, OpenCL, Vulkan, and general compute workloads. The Passmark G3D score of 5310 and the Geekbench Vulkan score of 30336 show measurable graphics performance. The 760M also records a Passmark GPU compute score of 2840, confirming it handles general-purpose tasks despite its integrated nature.

The AMD Instinct MI308X wins on raw specifications that directly affect compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 81.72 TFLOPS is more than 15 times the 760M's 5.323 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s versus system dependent bandwidth gives the MI308X a decisive advantage for memory-bound workloads. The MI308X also carries 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, while the 760M shares system memory with no dedicated allocation.

The architectural intent separates them further. The MI308X uses CDNA 3.0, an architecture optimized for compute, while the 760M uses RDNA 3.0, designed for graphics rendering. The MI308X has 19456 shading units and 1216 texture mapping units, dwarfing the 760M's 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. The 760M counters with 8 ray tracing cores and 16 ROPs, features the MI308X lacks entirely, as its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s. The MI308X has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for any visual output task, whereas the 760M's outputs are motherboard dependent, meaning it can drive displays when paired with a compatible platform.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundry nodes and design families. The MI308X uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The 760M uses a 4 nm TSMC process with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, giving a density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The MI308X is physically massive by comparison, more than five times the die area.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The MI308X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The 760M starts lower at 800 MHz but boosts higher to 2599 MHz. The MI308X's memory runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the 760M uses system shared memory with no fixed clock. The higher boost clock on the 760M reflects its role as a graphics processor where single-threaded clock speed matters for frame rendering, while the MI308X prioritizes massive parallel throughput over clock frequency.

The feature sets diverge sharply. The MI308X has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support recorded, no display outputs, and no power connectors, drawing power through its OAM module slot. The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its power comes through the motherboard. The MI308X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI308X lists a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the 760M lists none, consistent with its 15 W TDP versus the MI308X's 750 W TDP.

The MI308X's transistor density advantage is modest at 150.4 versus 142.6 million per square millimeter. The real difference lies in scale: the MI308X packs over six times the transistors of the 760M. The MI308X's 1216 TMUs produce a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the 760M's 32 TMUs deliver 83.17 GTexel/s. The MI308X has no ROPs and no pixel rate, confirming it cannot rasterize frames, while the 760M achieves a pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s.

FAQ

Q: Why does the MI308X have no benchmark scores in the database?

A: The database lists no benchmark entries for the MI308X, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0. The nearest rivals field is empty, meaning no comparable measurements exist for this accelerator. Its percentile standing of 50 is based on its specifications relative to all GPUs, not on test results.

Q: How does the 760M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is 0.3% ahead with an average score of 6001 versus 6019 for the 760M. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M is also 0.3% ahead at 6000. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is 0.4% ahead at 5996. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 trails by 0.5% with a score of 6049. All margins are within a fraction of a percent.

Q: Can the MI308X output video to a display?

A: No. The database records "No outputs" for its display outputs, and its APIs are listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, indicating it cannot produce rendered frames for display.

Q: What memory configuration does each product use?

A: The MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 760M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus width. The MI308X's memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the 760M has no dedicated memory clock.

Q: Which product has ray tracing support?

A: The 760M has 8 ray tracing cores. The MI308X has no ray tracing cores recorded. This aligns with the 760M's DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which includes ray tracing features, while the MI308X lists no graphics API support.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI308X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The 760M has a TDP of 15 W and no suggested PSU listed. The MI308X uses an OAM module slot with no power connectors, while the 760M is an IGP that draws power from the motherboard.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between these two products. The wins count for each side is zero. This absence is itself informative: the MI308X has no recorded benchmarks at all, while the 760M has ten separate test scores. Any direct comparison must therefore rely on the 760M's individual results and the architectural specifications of the MI308X.

The 760M's strongest recorded result is the Geekbench Vulkan score of 30336, followed by the Geekbench OpenCL score of 20255. In Passmark tests, the G3D score of 5310 leads, with the GPU compute score at 2840. The DirectX tests show lower numbers: DirectX 9 scores 65, DirectX 11 scores 52, DirectX 12 scores 25, and DirectX 10 scores 19. The G2D score of 890 reflects 2D graphics performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test records a score of 400.

The MI308X's specification sheet offers the only comparable metrics. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS exceeds the 760M's 5.323 TFLOPS by a factor of approximately 15.35. The texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 83.17 GTexel/s shows a similar gap. The MI308X's memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s cannot be directly compared to the 760M's system dependent figure, but the dedicated HBM3 implementation on an 8192-bit bus indicates a fundamentally different memory architecture.

The 760M's nearest rival data provides context for its standing. Its average benchmark score of 6019 places it within 0.5% of four other GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 6400, a discrete card, scores 6001, only 0.3% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M scores 6000, also 0.3% behind. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5996, 0.4% behind. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049, which is 0.5% ahead of the 760M. These tight margins suggest the 760M performs at a level comparable to entry-level discrete graphics cards from several generations.

The MI308X has no such comparison data. Its percentile of 50 places it at the median of all GPUs in the database, but this ranking comes without any measured scores to validate it. The 760M's percentile of 35 places it below the median, yet it has extensive test coverage. This contrast highlights the different validation paths for compute accelerators versus integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The process nodes differ: the MI308X uses 5 nm, the 760M uses 4 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are 153,000 million versus 25,390 million, with die sizes of 1017 mm² versus 178 mm². Transistor density is 150.4 million per square millimeter for the MI308X and 142.6 million for the 760M.

Clock speeds show the MI308X at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the 760M runs at 800 MHz base and 2599 MHz boost. The MI308X has a memory clock of 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the 760M uses system shared memory. Memory size is 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth for the MI308X, versus system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth for the 760M.

The compute units differ: 19456 shading units, 1216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs for the MI308X; 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the 760M. The 760M has 8 ray tracing cores, while the MI308X has none recorded. Pixel rates are 0 MPixel/s for the MI308X and 41.58 GPixel/s for the 760M. Texture rates are 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 83.17 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 5.323 TFLOPS, with both at 1:1 FP16 ratios.

Power and physical specifications diverge completely. The MI308X has a 750 W TDP with a 1150 W suggested PSU, uses an OAM module slot, and has no power connectors. The 760M has a 15 W TDP, no suggested PSU, uses an IGP slot, and has no power connectors. The MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are absent on the MI308X and motherboard dependent on the 760M.

API support is exclusive to the 760M: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X lists N/A for all three. Release dates differ by roughly two months, with the MI308X on December 5, 2023, and the 760M on January 30, 2024. The MI308X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, while the 760M's predecessor is Navi II IGP. Neither has a recorded successor. The MI308X has no production status recorded, while the 760M is listed as active.