AMD Instinct MI308X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI308X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7800. The head-to-head field is empty, and neither card has recorded benchmark scores in the same test suite. This absence of overlap is itself informative. The MI308X carries an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50, meaning it has no measured performance data in the database. The W7800, by contrast, has two recorded Geekbench scores: 154,366 in OpenCL and 175,422 in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 164,894, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs tracked.

The W7800’s nearest rivals provide context for its standing. It trails the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation by 0.7% and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 by 0.2%. It leads the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.5% and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X by 2.2%. These deltas are narrow, indicating that the W7800 sits in a tight competitive cluster among professional workstation cards. The MI308X, with no scores, cannot be positioned in this cluster. The data does not support any claim of one card outperforming the other in any test, because no shared benchmark exists.

What the data does show is that the MI308X is designed for a different measurement context. Its FP32 throughput is listed at 81.72 TFLOPS, while its FP16 throughput is identical at 81.72 TFLOPS, a 1:1 ratio. The W7800 delivers 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 and 90.50 TFLOPS FP16, a 2:1 ratio. In raw FP32, the MI308X is approximately 80% higher. In FP16, the W7800 is approximately 11% higher. These figures come from the specification fields, not from benchmark runs, so they describe theoretical peak rates, not application performance.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story of divergence. The MI308X has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus. The W7800 has 576.0 GB/s from GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus. The MI308X’s bandwidth is over nine times higher. Texture rate also favors the MI308X: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 707.0 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is the opposite: the MI308X is listed at 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the W7800 reaches 323.2 GPixel/s. The MI308X does not produce display output, so its zero pixel rate is consistent with its compute-only role.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X is rated at 81.72 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is rated at 45.25 TFLOPS FP32. The MI308X is about 80% higher in this metric.

Q: Does the W7800 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 includes 70 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI308X has no listed ray tracing cores.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: Only the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has display outputs, offering 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The AMD Instinct MI308X has no display outputs.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 1150 W. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has a 260 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 600 W.

Q: How does the W7800 compare to its nearest rival in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has an average benchmark score of 164,894. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A5500, scores 165,217, a delta of -0.2%. The W7800 is effectively tied with that card, slightly behind.

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 as a finished, measured product. It has benchmark scores, a 97th percentile ranking, and a set of nearest rivals with narrow percentage deltas. The AMD Instinct MI308X has no benchmark scores, no rivals, and a 50th percentile placement, which in this database appears to be the default for unmeasured devices. The verdict from the data is that the W7800 is the only one of the two that can be evaluated by observed performance.

The MI308X’s specifications suggest a different purpose, but the database does not contain evidence of how that purpose translates into application results. Its FP32 and FP16 rates are high, its memory subsystem is massive, and its transistor count of 153,000 million dwarfs the W7800’s 57,700 million. Yet without benchmark output, these numbers remain theoretical. The W7800’s 154,366 OpenCL and 175,422 Vulkan scores are the only concrete performance artifacts in this comparison.

For a user relying on database measurements, the W7800 is the defensible choice for any workload that appears in standard GPU benchmarks. The MI308X cannot be recommended on the basis of measured results, because no results exist. The data does not rule out the MI308X being faster in specific compute tasks, but it also provides no confirmation. The verdict is therefore asymmetric: the W7800 has proven itself in the database, while the MI308X remains an unverified entry with exceptional paper specifications.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification field. The AMD Instinct MI308X uses an Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 uses a Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but transistor counts diverge sharply: the MI308X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the W7800 has 57,700 million on a 529 mm² die. Transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI308X and 109.1M per mm² for the W7800.

Clock speeds differ. The MI308X has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The W7800 has a 1895 MHz base and 2525 MHz boost. Memory clocks are also different: the MI308X runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the W7800 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. Memory type and capacity differ completely, with HBM3 192 GB on the MI308X versus GDDR6 32 GB on the W7800. Bus widths are 8192 bit versus 256 bit.

Shading units, texture mapping units, and ROPs all differ. The MI308X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The W7800 has 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The MI308X has no ray tracing cores, while the W7800 has 70. Power consumption differs: 750 W TDP for the MI308X versus 260 W for the W7800. The MI308X uses an OAM module slot width with no power connectors, while the W7800 is dual-slot with 2x 8-pin connectors. Suggested PSU is 1150 W versus 600 W. The MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, the W7800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI308X has no display outputs, while the W7800 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The W7800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI308X lists no API support.

Architecture Differences

The architecture split is fundamental. The AMD Instinct MI308X uses CDNA 3.0, a compute-focused design. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 uses RDNA 3.0, a graphics-focused design. This explains the absence of display outputs and ROPs on the MI308X, as well as its lack of ray tracing cores. The MI308X is built for data center compute, where pixel output and graphics APIs are irrelevant. The W7800 is a workstation card, so it retains the full graphics pipeline including 128 ROPs, 70 ray tracing cores, and four display outputs.

The memory architectures reflect these priorities. The MI308X’s HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus delivers 5.32 TB/s, which is typical for accelerator-class memory bandwidth. The W7800’s GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus delivers 576.0 GB/s, which is sufficient for graphics workloads but far below the MI308X. The FP16 ratio also differs: the MI308X has 1:1 FP32 to FP16, meaning it does not double FP16 throughput. The W7800 has 2:1, meaning its FP16 rate is twice its FP32 rate. This suggests the MI308X is optimized for FP32 compute or possibly uses a different precision strategy, while the W7800 leverages packed FP16 for graphics effects.

The process node is identical at 5 nm TSMC, but the die sizes and transistor counts indicate different design philosophies. The MI308X is a massive 1017 mm² die with 153,000 million transistors, pushing density to 150.4M per mm². The W7800 is a smaller 529 mm² die with 57,700 million transistors and 109.1M per mm². The MI308X uses a higher transistor density, which is consistent with a compute-optimized design that packs more memory controllers and compute units. The W7800’s lower density reflects its inclusion of graphics-specific hardware like ray tracing cores and ROPs.

The release dates differ by eight months. The W7800 launched on April 12, 2023. The MI308X launched on December 5, 2023. The W7800 has a production status of active, while the MI308X has no listed production status. The W7800 has a predecessor in the Radeon Pro Vega, while the MI308X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. Neither has a listed successor.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins in every area where measurement exists. It has benchmark scores, a 97th percentile rank, and an average score of 164,894. It wins on pixel rate with 323.2 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s for the MI308X. It wins on display output capability with four DisplayPort 2.1 connections. It wins on API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, all absent from the MI308X. It wins on power efficiency in the sense that its 260 W TDP is far lower than the MI308X’s 750 W TDP, and its suggested PSU of 600 W is half the MI308X’s 1150 W.

The AMD Instinct MI308X wins only in specification-based metrics where no benchmark evidence exists. It has higher FP32 throughput at 81.72 TFLOPS versus 45.25 TFLOPS. It has higher texture rate at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 707.0 GTexel/s. It has vastly higher memory bandwidth at 5.32 TB/s versus 576.0 GB/s, and more memory at 192 GB versus 32 GB. It has more shading units at 19,456 versus 4,480, and more TMUs at 1,216 versus 280. It uses PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16.

The data implies a use-case split. For graphics workstations, the W7800 is the only viable choice because the MI308X cannot output video and has no graphics API support. For compute workloads that require massive memory capacity and bandwidth, the MI308X’s specifications are compelling, but the database contains no benchmark scores to confirm its real-world performance. The W7800’s nearest rivals show it competing closely with other workstation cards, which reinforces its position in that segment. The MI308X has no such competitive context in the database.

The FP16 comparison is notable. The W7800 doubles its FP32 rate to reach 90.50 TFLOPS FP16, which exceeds the MI308X’s 81.72 TFLOPS FP16. If a workload relies on FP16, the W7800’s packed arithmetic gives it a theoretical edge. If a workload relies on FP32, the MI308X leads by a wide margin. The absence of benchmark scores means these theoretical edges cannot be verified. The database records no wins for either card in head-to-head tests, because no head-to-head tests were recorded.