AMD Instinct MI308X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

AMD Instinct MI308X and AMD Radeon PRO W7600 occupy opposite ends of the AMD professional GPU spectrum. The data shows a compute-focused accelerator built for scale and a workstation card designed for conventional graphics workloads. The recorded measurements for the Radeon PRO W7600 place it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Instinct MI308X sits at the 50th percentile with no benchmark entries in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head test results between these two cards. The only recorded scores belong to the Radeon PRO W7600, which delivers an average benchmark score of 87,108. Its Geekbench OpenCL result is 81,528, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 92,688. The Instinct MI308X has an average benchmark score of 0 and zero recorded tests, meaning no quantitative performance comparison can be made from the existing data.

The Radeon PRO W7600's nearest rivals provide context for its measured performance. It sits 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, whose average score is 87,445, and 5% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500, which scores 91,671. The W7600 is 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX, which scores 85,637, and 4.4% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile at 91,134. These deltas indicate the W7600 competes in a tight mid-range workstation band where small percentage differences separate cards.

The Instinct MI308X presents a different situation entirely. Without any benchmark scores in the database, its percentile ranking of 50 is a default position rather than a measured outcome. The absence of recorded tests does not reflect poorly on the hardware itself; it reflects the database's coverage of an accelerator that is typically deployed in server environments rather than benchmarked on standard consumer test suites.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of roles. The Radeon PRO W7600 is the only card of the two with measurable benchmark results, and those results place it among capable workstation competitors. Its 93rd percentile ranking and average score of 87,108 indicate it handles conventional GPU workloads with competence. The Instinct MI308X has no recorded measurements, so the database offers no evidence of its benchmark performance.

The decision between these cards depends on workload type rather than performance comparison. The W7600 provides display outputs and API support, making it suitable for graphics-heavy tasks. The MI308X provides no display outputs and no API support, indicating it is not designed for interactive graphics work. The recorded data shows the W7600 as the only option with proven benchmark performance in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark score?

A: The Radeon PRO W7600 has an average benchmark score of 87,108, while the Instinct MI308X has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: How does the Radeon PRO W7600 compare to its nearest competitors?

A: It is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX, 4.4% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, and 5% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500.

Q: What is the Radeon PRO W7600's percentile ranking?

A: The W7600 sits in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Instinct MI308X sits at the 50th percentile.

Q: Does the Instinct MI308X have any display outputs?

A: No, the Instinct MI308X has no display outputs, whereas the Radeon PRO W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The Instinct MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Radeon PRO W7600?

A: The launch MSRP is 599 USD. The Instinct MI308X has no launch MSRP listed in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in every major specification category. The Instinct MI308X uses a 5 nm process node, while the Radeon PRO W7600 uses 6 nm. Transistor counts differ by an order of magnitude: the MI308X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the W7600 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. Transistor density reflects this gap, with the MI308X at 150.4M per mm² and the W7600 at 65.2M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the W7600 in base and boost frequencies. The W7600 runs at 1720 MHz base and 2440 MHz boost, compared to 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost for the MI308X. Memory clocks also differ, with the W7600 at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and the MI308X at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The memory subsystem favors the MI308X in capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth: 192 GB HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus delivering 5.32 TB/s, versus 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus delivering 288.0 GB/s.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The MI308X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, while the W7600 has 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs. The W7600 has 64 ROPs and 32 ray tracing cores; the MI308X has 0 ROPs and no ray tracing cores. Pixel rate is 156.2 GPixel/s for the W7600 versus 0 MPixel/s for the MI308X. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI308X versus 312.3 GTexel/s for the W7600. FP32 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI308X and 19.99 TFLOPS for the W7600. FP16 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio for the MI308X and 39.98 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio for the W7600.

Power and physical specifications separate the cards further. The MI308X has a TDP of 750 W and requires a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the W7600 has a TDP of 130 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The MI308X uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors, while the W7600 is a single-slot card with one 6-pin connector. The MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, and the W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The W7600 measures 241 mm in length and 115 mm in height; the MI308X has no dimensions listed. The W7600 is marked as Active in production status, while the MI308X has no production status recorded.

Architecture Differences

The Instinct MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built for compute acceleration. The Radeon PRO W7600 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. The MI308X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation with a Radeon Instinct predecessor, while the W7600 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation with a Radeon Pro Vega predecessor.

The MI308X has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The W7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This aligns with their respective roles: the MI308X is a compute accelerator without graphics APIs, and the W7600 is a workstation graphics card with full API coverage.

The MI308X includes no ray tracing cores, while the W7600 includes 32. Neither card lists tensor cores. Memory architecture reflects the different design goals: HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus for the MI308X enables massive bandwidth for data-intensive compute, while GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus for the W7600 suits conventional graphics workloads. The FP16 ratio also differs, with the MI308X offering 1:1 performance and the W7600 offering 2:1, indicating different approaches to precision handling.

Release dates place the MI308X first at December 5, 2023, followed by the W7600 on August 2, 2023. The MI308X has no launch MSRP, while the W7600 launched at 599 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7600 wins in every measured category because it is the only card with benchmark data. Its average score of 87,108, OpenCL score of 81,528, and Vulkan score of 92,688 demonstrate measurable performance. Its 93rd percentile ranking confirms it outperforms the majority of GPUs in the database. The W7600 also wins on display connectivity with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it the only card of the two that can drive monitors directly.

The Instinct MI308X wins in raw computational specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is more than four times the W7600's 19.99 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s dwarfs the W7600's 312.3 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s versus 288.0 GB/s gives it a massive advantage for memory-intensive workloads. Its 192 GB capacity versus 8 GB means it can hold far larger datasets. The MI308X also wins on transistor count, die size, and shading unit count, reflecting its design as a large-scale compute processor.

The W7600 wins on power efficiency in practical terms. Its 130 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU contrast with the MI308X's 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU. The W7600's smaller physical footprint as a single-slot card with a 6-pin connector makes it far easier to integrate into a standard workstation. The MI308X's OAM Module format and lack of power connectors indicate a data center installation requirement.

The data paints two distinct pictures. The W7600 is a measured, benchmarked workstation card with competitive scores against its nearest rivals. The MI308X is a specification-driven compute accelerator whose capabilities are documented through architecture and hardware details rather than benchmark results. Their overlap is minimal, and each card addresses a different segment of the AMD professional lineup.