AMD Instinct MI308X vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records show that both the AMD Instinct MI308X and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X share identical silicon, but the measured specifications reveal notable differences in memory clocks and compute throughput. The most significant divergence appears in the memory subsystem. The AMD Instinct MI308X runs its HBM3 memory at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective transfer rate, producing a bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X operates its HBM3 memory at 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective transfer rate, yielding a bandwidth of 10.3 TB/s. This is a 1.94x difference in memory bandwidth, a factor that directly impacts memory-bound workloads.

The compute capabilities show a split depending on precision. In FP32, both accelerators deliver an identical 81.72 TFLOPS. The shading unit count is the same at 19456, and the texture mapping units match at 1216. The texture rate for both is 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The pixel rate for both is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, which aligns with their lack of display outputs. The story changes in FP16. The AMD Instinct MI308X achieves 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput equals FP32 throughput. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X achieves 653.7 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is eight times its FP32 throughput. This represents an 8x advantage in FP16 compute for the Radeon Instinct variant.

The absence of head-to-head benchmark entries in the database means there are no direct performance scores to compare. The wins counter shows 0 for both sides. The average benchmark score for both is 0, and the percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both. These values indicate that no standardized benchmark results have been recorded for either product. The measured specification differences therefore serve as the primary basis for differentiation.

The clock speeds for the compute cores are identical. Both accelerators have a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The power envelope is also identical at 750 W TDP, with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. Both use an OAM Module slot width and no power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for both. Display outputs are absent on both, confirming their compute-only design.

The memory capacity is identical at 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192 bit bus width. The difference lies solely in the memory clock and the resulting bandwidth. The Radeon Instinct MI308X more than doubles the memory bandwidth of the Instinct MI308X. This affects any workload that streams large datasets through the memory hierarchy.

The FP16 difference is equally stark. The Radeon Instinct MI308X delivers 653.7 TFLOPS in FP16, which is exactly eight times its FP32 figure. The Instinct MI308X does not scale FP16 beyond its FP32 number. That means the Radeon Instinct variant is the only one of the two that accelerates FP16 workloads. The 8:1 ratio indicates the hardware uses a different execution path for reduced precision, while the 1:1 ratio on the Instinct MI308X shows no such path.

FAQ

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the AMD Instinct MI308X and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has a memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X has a memory bandwidth of 10.3 TB/s. The Radeon Instinct variant provides approximately 1.94x the bandwidth.

Q: Do the two accelerators differ in FP32 performance?

A: No. Both the AMD Instinct MI308X and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X deliver 81.72 TFLOPS in FP32. The shading unit count, texture mapping unit count, and texture rate are identical as well.

Q: How does FP16 performance compare between the two?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X delivers 653.7 TFLOPS in FP16 with an 8:1 ratio. The Radeon Instinct variant provides 8x the FP16 throughput.

Q: What memory type and bus width do both accelerators use?

A: Both use HBM3 memory with a bus width of 8192 bit and a capacity of 192 GB. The memory clock differs: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the Instinct MI308X and 2525 MHz (10.1 Gbps effective) for the Radeon Instinct MI308X.

Q: Are the power requirements the same?

A: Yes. Both have a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. Both are OAM Modules with no power connectors and no display outputs.

Q: What is the release date for both products?

A: Both the AMD Instinct MI308X and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X have a release date of 2023-12-05T17:00:00.000Z.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X is the more capable part for FP16-intensive and memory-bandwidth-intensive workloads. Its FP16 throughput of 653.7 TFLOPS is 8x that of the AMD Instinct MI308X, and its memory bandwidth of 10.3 TB/s is nearly double the 5.32 TB/s of the Instinct MI308X. For workloads that rely on reduced precision arithmetic, such as AI inference or training with FP16, the Radeon Instinct variant is the only one of the two that provides hardware acceleration at that precision.

The AMD Instinct MI308X, with its 1:1 FP16 ratio and lower memory bandwidth, is better suited for workloads that stay in FP32. Both accelerators deliver the same 81.72 TFLOPS in FP32, so the Instinct MI308X does not lose anything in that precision. The identical base clock of 1000 MHz, boost clock of 2100 MHz, and 192 GB HBM3 capacity mean the two share the same core compute foundation.

Users who prioritize FP32 compute and do not need FP16 acceleration can select either part, as the FP32 numbers are identical. Users who require FP16 throughput should select the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X, because the 653.7 TFLOPS figure is the only FP16 number that exceeds the FP32 baseline. The memory bandwidth advantage of the Radeon Instinct variant also provides headroom for data movement, which is often the limiting factor in large-scale compute tasks.

The database records no benchmark scores for either product, so the verdict rests on specification analysis. The measured differences are unambiguous: the Radeon Instinct MI308X dominates in FP16 and memory bandwidth, while the Instinct MI308X matches it in FP32 and equals it in power consumption. The 750 W TDP for both means the Radeon Instinct variant delivers its extra throughput without requiring additional power.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ in the following recorded fields. The memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the AMD Instinct MI308X and 2525 MHz (10.1 Gbps effective) for the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X. The memory bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s for the Instinct MI308X and 10.3 TB/s for the Radeon Instinct MI308X. The FP16 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) for the Instinct MI308X and 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) for the Radeon Instinct MI308X.

The generation field differs. The Instinct MI308X is listed under the generation "Instinct (MIx)", while the Radeon Instinct MI308X is listed under "Radeon Instinct (MIx)". The predecessor field also differs: the Instinct MI308X lists "Radeon Instinct" as its predecessor, while the Radeon Instinct MI308X lists "FirePro Data Center". The API fields for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are listed as "N/A" for the Instinct MI308X, while they are listed as null for the Radeon Instinct MI308X.

All other specifications are identical. Both use the Aqua Vanjaram chip, CDNA 3.0 architecture, 5 nm process node, TSMC foundry, 153,000 million transistors, 1017 mm² die size, and a transistor density of 150.4M / mm². Both have 19456 shading units, 1216 TMUs, 0 ROPs, a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, and an FP32 performance of 81.72 TFLOPS. Both have a TDP of 750 W, use an OAM Module slot width, have no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 1150 W, a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, no display outputs, 192 GB of HBM3 memory, an 8192 bit bus width, a base clock of 1000 MHz, a boost clock of 2100 MHz, and a release date of 2023-12-05T17:00:00.000Z.

Architecture Differences

Both accelerators share the same fundamental architecture. The chip is Aqua Vanjaram, built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, using a 5 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is 153,000 million, the die size is 1017 mm², and the transistor density is 150.4M / mm². The core configuration is identical: 19456 shading units and 1216 texture mapping units, with no ROPs recorded.

The architectural difference lies in the FP16 execution path. The AMD Instinct MI308X has an FP16 ratio of 1:1, meaning FP16 operations run at the same rate as FP32. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X has an FP16 ratio of 8:1, meaning FP16 operations run eight times faster than FP32. This indicates a hardware difference in the reduced-precision execution resources, even though the raw shading unit count is the same. The Radeon Instinct variant has additional or more efficient FP16 datapaths.

The memory architecture also differs in clock speed. Both use HBM3 with an 8192 bit bus and 192 GB capacity, but the Radeon Instinct MI308X runs its memory at 2525 MHz (10.1 Gbps effective) versus 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the Instinct MI308X. This is a 1.94x increase in memory clock, yielding 10.3 TB/s versus 5.32 TB/s. The memory controller design appears capable of supporting both speeds, but the Radeon Instinct variant is configured for the higher rate.

The API support is recorded differently: the Instinct MI308X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as "N/A", while the Radeon Instinct MI308X lists these fields as null. Neither has display outputs, so graphics API support is effectively absent on both. The generation naming differs, with the Instinct MI308X under "Instinct (MIx)" and the Radeon Instinct MI308X under "Radeon Instinct (MIx)".

The predecessor naming differs as well. The Instinct MI308X lists "Radeon Instinct" as its predecessor, while the Radeon Instinct MI308X lists "FirePro Data Center". This reflects a different product lineage, though both converge on the same Aqua Vanjaram chip. The compute core, cache hierarchy, and power delivery are identical based on the recorded data. The only architectural deltas are the FP16 execution path, the memory clock configuration, and the product family naming.