AMD Instinct MI308X vs AMD Radeon PRO V710 Comparison

# FAQ

Q: What are the recorded benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon PRO V710?

A: The database shows two entries for the AMD Radeon PRO V710: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 853 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 116,460. The average benchmark score across recorded tests is 58,657.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon PRO V710 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The recorded data places the V710 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA P102-100, 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT, 0.7% ahead of the Intel Arc A570M, and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM in average benchmark scores.

Q: What percentile ranking does each card hold?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the AMD Radeon PRO V710 ranks at the 88th percentile. This indicates the V710 outperforms a significantly larger share of the database population.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X carries 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 uses 28 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 224-bit bus with 504.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP32 compute output for each card?

A: The MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and the V710 delivers 27.65 TFLOPS. Both cards achieve the same FP16 figure as their FP32 number, indicating a 1:1 ratio.

Q: Do either of these cards provide display outputs?

A: Neither card has display outputs. The MI308X is an OAM module with no outputs, and the V710 is a single-slot card with no outputs.

# The Verdict

The data presents two sharply different AMD accelerators. The AMD Instinct MI308X is a massive compute-oriented module built on CDNA 3.0 architecture. Its 192 GB memory pool, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, and 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate position it for memory-intensive and raw-compute workloads. The AMD Radeon PRO V710, by contrast, uses RDNA 3.0 architecture and focuses on a different balance: 28 GB GDDR6, 504.0 GB/s bandwidth, 27.65 TFLOPS FP32, and 192.0 GPixel/s pixel throughput.

The benchmark database contains no recorded head-to-head results between the two cards, and the MI308X has no benchmark entries at all. The V710, however, has two recorded scores and an 88th percentile ranking. The MI308X sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero. This does not necessarily mean the MI308X is a weaker product; it reflects that no benchmark submissions exist for it in the database. The V710 is the only one of the two with measurable performance data.

For workloads that demand massive memory capacity and extreme bandwidth, the MI308X specification sheet shows clear advantages. For workloads where the GPU must render pixels, process graphics APIs, or operate within a conventional PCIe slot power envelope, the V710 provides the only viable option. The MI308X offers no pixel rate, no graphics API support, and no display outputs. The V710 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The verdict splits cleanly. Compute-heavy, memory-bound, large-model workloads align with the MI308X. Graphics-oriented, render-focused, or API-dependent workloads align with the V710. The V710 has demonstrated benchmark performance in the database. The MI308X does not, so its capabilities must be assessed from its recorded specifications alone.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI308X and the AMD Radeon PRO V710. The headToHeadBenchmarks field is empty, and neither card has a win count against the other. This absence of direct comparison data means any performance analysis must rely on the recorded specifications and the V710's individual benchmark results.

The V710's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 853 provides a concrete reference point for graphics-oriented workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 116,460 indicates substantial general-purpose compute capability. The MI308X has no equivalent entries, so no direct numerical comparison can be made through the database.

The nearest-rival data only covers the V710. Its average benchmark score of 58,657 places it marginally ahead of the NVIDIA P102-100 (58,528, 0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392, 0.5% delta), the Intel Arc A570M (58,239, 0.7% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085, 1% delta). These deltas are small, indicating the V710 performs in a tight competitive cluster rather than dominating its peers.

The MI308X's percentile ranking of 50 and average benchmark score of 0 suggest no recorded submissions. The V710's 88th percentile ranking shows it outperforms most GPUs in the database when judged by its recorded average. Without direct head-to-head data, the biggest wins each way must be inferred from specification differences.

The MI308X shows a theoretical FP32 advantage of 54.07 TFLOPS over the V710 (81.72 versus 27.65). Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is roughly 5.9 times the V710's 432.0 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s is more than 10 times the V710's 504.0 GB/s. These are substantial gaps on paper.

The V710 counters with a 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate where the MI308X records 0 MPixel/s. The V710 also has 96 ROPs while the MI308X lists 0. The V710's 54 ray-tracing cores provide a feature the MI308X does not list. In any workload that requires rasterization, ray tracing, or pixel output, the V710 is the only candidate with applicable hardware.

# Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measured specification category. The MI308X uses an 8192-bit memory bus; the V710 uses a 224-bit bus. The MI308X memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate; the V710 memory clock is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The MI308X memory bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s; the V710 bandwidth is 504.0 GB/s.

Shading units differ dramatically: 19,456 on the MI308X versus 3,456 on the V710. Texture mapping units number 1,216 on the MI308X versus 216 on the V710. The MI308X records 0 ROPs; the V710 has 96. The MI308X lists no ray-tracing cores; the V710 has 54.

Clock speeds also differ. The MI308X base clock is 1000 MHz with a 2100 MHz boost. The V710 base clock is 1900 MHz with a 2000 MHz boost. The V710 runs at higher base clocks, while the MI308X has a higher boost ceiling.

Power and physical configuration differ significantly. The MI308X has a TDP of 750 W and uses an OAM module form factor with no power connectors. The V710 has a TDP of 158 W, uses a single-slot form factor, and requires one 8-pin power connector. The suggested PSU is 1150 W for the MI308X and 450 W for the V710.

Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI308X, PCIe 4.0 x16 for the V710. API support diverges completely. The MI308X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The V710 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Transistor count and die size differ as well. The MI308X contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die with a density of 150.4 million transistors per mm². The V710 contains 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die with a density of 81.2 million per mm².

Release dates differ by roughly ten months. The MI308X was released on December 5, 2023. The V710 was released on October 2, 2024.

# Architecture Differences

The MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The V710 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, codenamed Wheat Nas. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, so the manufacturing node does not differentiate them. The architectural split is the primary distinction.

CDNA 3.0 is designed for compute acceleration. The MI308X has no display outputs, no graphics API support, no pixel rate, and no ROPs. Its 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs feed a 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate. Its 192 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth indicates a design aimed at large datasets and sustained compute throughput. The 750 W TDP and OAM module form factor reinforce this: it is a data-center accelerator, not a graphics card.

RDNA 3.0 is a graphics-oriented architecture. The V710 retains full graphics features: 96 ROPs, 54 ray-tracing cores, a 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. Its 158 W TDP and single-slot design with one 8-pin connector allow deployment in conventional server configurations. The 28 GB GDDR6 memory on a 224-bit bus provides 504.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is modest compared to the MI308X but appropriate for graphics workloads.

The MI308X transistor density is 150.4 million per mm², nearly double the V710's 81.2 million per mm². The MI308X uses a much larger die (1017 mm² versus 346 mm²) and far more transistors (153,000 million versus 28,100 million). This reflects the different design goals: maximum compute throughput per package versus balanced graphics and compute performance per watt.

The MI308X supports PCIe 5.0 x16; the V710 supports PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI308X has no APIs listed, while the V710 supports modern graphics APIs. The MI308X has no display outputs, and the V710 also has no display outputs, so neither card is intended for direct display connection.

# Where Each One Wins

The MI308X wins in raw compute and memory capacity. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 is nearly three times the V710's 27.65 TFLOPS. Its 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the V710's 504.0 GB/s by an order of magnitude. Its 192 GB memory capacity dwarfs the V710's 28 GB. Workloads that load large models, matrices, or datasets into memory and then perform sustained arithmetic operations will favor the MI308X.

The MI308X also wins on texture throughput. Its 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate is roughly 5.9 times the V710's 432.0 GTexel/s. This suggests an advantage in compute tasks that involve heavy data movement through texture units, even though the MI308X lacks conventional graphics output.

The V710 wins in every graphics-specific category. It has a 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate; the MI308X records 0 MPixel/s. It has 96 ROPs; the MI308X has 0. It has 54 ray-tracing cores; the MI308X lists none. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the MI308X lists all APIs as N/A. Any workload that rasterizes geometry, traces rays, or relies on graphics APIs will only run on the V710.

The V710 also wins on power efficiency and deployment flexibility. Its 158 W TDP is far below the MI308X's 750 W. Its suggested PSU is 450 W versus 1150 W for the MI308X. The single-slot form factor with one 8-pin connector is far easier to integrate than the OAM module, which requires no power connectors but also no standard slot mounting. The V710's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface is more common in existing servers than the MI308X's PCIe 5.0 x16, though the MI308X carries the newer standard.

The V710 wins on measured database performance. Its average benchmark score of 58,657 and 88th percentile ranking stand in contrast to the MI308X's 50th percentile and zero average score. The V710's nearest-rival deltas are all positive, from 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA P102-100 to 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM. The MI308X has no recorded benchmark submissions, so its performance cannot be verified through the database.

The MI308X wins on raw specification supremacy. The V710 wins on measured performance, graphics capability, and practical deployability. The choice depends on whether the workload demands massive memory and compute throughput or requires graphics features and established benchmark results.