AMD Instinct MI308X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The comparison between the AMD Instinct MI308X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is not a conventional contest, because the database holds no benchmark scores for the MI308X. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and its percentile versus all GPUs sits at 50. The W7500, by contrast, has a full set of recorded measurements, an average benchmark score of 16,415, and a percentile of 59. The data therefore indicates that the W7500 is the only one of the two with measurable performance in the database, which makes its wins across every tested workload absolute by default.

The W7500 delivers 58,213 in Geekbench OpenCL and 68,634 in Geekbench Vulkan. Those scores place it ahead of its nearest rivals in the database. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell scores 16,408 on average, a delta of 0% against the W7500's 16,415. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 16,361, which is 0.3% behind. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 16,351, 0.4% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16,504, which is 0.5% ahead of the W7500, the only rival in the list that edges past it.

In Passmark tests, the W7500 shows a wide spread across API generations. It scores 65 in DirectX 10, 125 in DirectX 11, 46 in DirectX 12, and 200 in DirectX 9. The DirectX 9 result is more than four times the DirectX 10 result, and more than four times the DirectX 12 result. The G2D score is 1,174, while the G3D score is 13,368. The GPU compute score is 5,910. These figures indicate that the W7500 is strongest in legacy DirectX 9 workloads and in general 3D rendering, while its compute throughput is comparatively lower than its rasterization performance.

The MI308X has no recorded wins because it has no recorded scores. The database shows 0 wins for the MI308X and 0 wins for the W7500 in the head-to-head array, which is empty. This means the data cannot establish any benchmark superiority for the MI308X, despite its far larger hardware specifications. The W7500's percentile of 59 versus the MI308X's 50 further suggests that, based on the available measurements, the W7500 sits higher in the overall performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different AMD architectures and target different roles. The MI308X uses CDNA 3.0, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with the chip named Aqua Vanjaram. The W7500 uses RDNA 3.0, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with the chip named Navi 33 and the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The manufacturing node difference is one step, 5 nm versus 6 nm, which affects transistor density. The MI308X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The W7500 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The MI308X therefore has more than 11 times the transistor count and roughly five times the die area.

Memory architecture differs entirely. The MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7500 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s. That is a 512 GB/s difference in favor of the MI308X per gigabyte, but the raw bandwidth gap is massive: 5.32 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. The MI308X's memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the W7500's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. The W7500's memory runs at a higher data rate per pin, but the MI308X's far wider bus overwhelms that advantage.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The MI308X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, with 0 ROPs. The W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI308X's pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, while the W7500 delivers 108.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI308X versus 190.4 GTexel/s for the W7500. FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI308X versus 12.19 TFLOPS for the W7500. FP16 is 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) for the MI308X versus 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1) for the W7500. The MI308X does not list ray tracing cores, while the W7500 has 28 RT cores.

The MI308X has no display outputs and no supported APIs, with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all listed as N/A. The W7500 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X uses an OAM module slot width with no power connectors, while the W7500 is a single-slot card with no power connectors. The MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI308X's TDP is 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W; the W7500's TDP is 70 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Where Each One Wins

The W7500 wins in every measurable benchmark category because it is the only one with recorded scores. In API-specific tests, it wins across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, with the highest score in DirectX 9 at 200 and the lowest in DirectX 12 at 46. In compute-oriented tests, it wins in Geekbench OpenCL with 58,213 and Geekbench Vulkan with 68,634. In Passmark, it wins in G2D with 1,174, G3D with 13,368, and GPU compute with 5,910. The W7500 also wins on connectivity and usability: it has display outputs, which the MI308X lacks entirely, and it supports modern graphics APIs.

The MI308X wins on paper specifications. It has a larger memory capacity (192 GB versus 8 GB), a wider memory bus (8192 bit versus 128 bit), higher memory bandwidth (5.32 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s), more shading units (19,456 versus 1,792), more TMUs (1,216 versus 112), higher FP32 throughput (81.72 TFLOPS versus 12.19 TFLOPS), higher FP16 throughput (81.72 TFLOPS versus 24.37 TFLOPS), higher texture rate (2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 190.4 GTexel/s), a smaller process node (5 nm versus 6 nm), a newer PCIe interface (5.0 x16 versus 4.0 x8), and a higher transistor density. However, the database has no benchmark results to confirm these specifications translate into measured performance. The MI308X also has no ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, which indicates it is not designed for rasterization output.

The use-case split from the data is clear. The W7500 is for graphics output, workstation display, and API-compatible rendering. The MI308X is for compute acceleration without any display path, as shown by its lack of outputs and API support. The W7500's 64 ROPs and 108.8 GPixel/s pixel rate make it suitable for pixel-heavy tasks, while the MI308X's 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate make it unsuitable for any task that requires frame buffer output. The MI308X's FP16 1:1 ratio versus the W7500's 2:1 ratio suggests the MI308X treats FP16 and FP32 as equal throughput, which is typical for compute accelerators, while the W7500 halves FP16 throughput relative to FP32.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The W7500 has an average benchmark score of 16,415. The MI308X has an average benchmark score of 0, meaning the database holds no measured performance for it.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The MI308X delivers 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus. The W7500 delivers 256.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the MI308X support display outputs?

A: No. The MI308X has no display outputs, while the W7500 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: How do the FP32 throughput figures compare?

A: The MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32. The W7500 delivers 12.19 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the W7500 in the database?

A: The closest is the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell with an average score of 16,408 (0% delta). The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 16,361 (0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 16,351 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16,504 (0.5% ahead).

Q: What process nodes do the two GPUs use?

A: The MI308X uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The W7500 uses a 6 nm process at TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI308X | AMD Radeon PRO W7500 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Navi 33 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz, 5.2 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19,456 | 1,792 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 112 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| RT Cores | null | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 108.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 190.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 12.19 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2023-08-02 |

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward selection. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the only one of the two with any recorded benchmark performance, and its measurements place it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs. It has a functional display output configuration, full API support, and a 70 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU. It is a complete graphics solution for any workload that requires rendering, output, or API compatibility. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.5% of its average score, which indicates it sits in a tightly competitive performance band.

The AMD Instinct MI308X is a different class of hardware, but the database does not contain any benchmark scores to validate its capabilities. Its specifications are enormous: 192 GB of HBM3, 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, and a 5 nm process with 153,000 million transistors. It is a compute accelerator with no display outputs and no API support. Its 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate confirm it is not intended for graphics output. The 1000 MHz base clock and 2100 MHz boost clock are lower than the W7500's 1500 MHz and 1700 MHz, but the MI308X compensates with vastly more compute units.

For a user who needs a graphics card, the W7500 is the only defensible choice from the data. For a user who needs raw compute throughput, the MI308X has the specifications that suggest capability, but the lack of any measured scores means the database cannot confirm actual performance. The MI308X's launch MSRP is not recorded, while the W7500 has a launch MSRP of 429 USD. The verdict is that the W7500 is the verified performer, while the MI308X remains an unverified specification sheet.