AMD Instinct MI308X vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI308X and AMD Radeon RX 6550M occupy opposite ends of AMD's accelerator spectrum, with the former designed as a massive data center compute module and the latter as a mobile graphics processor. The recorded data shows a complete divergence in architectural priorities, and the benchmark results, where available, highlight the practical consequences of these different design goals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI308X and the AMD Radeon RX 6550M. This is expected given their fundamentally different deployment targets, as the MI308X is an OAM module with no display outputs while the RX 6550M is an integrated graphics processor for portable devices. The MI308X carries no benchmark scores in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs. The RX 6550M, by contrast, has recorded benchmark data from two standard tests.

The RX 6550M achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 42536 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 50867, producing an average benchmark score of 46702. This places the RX 6550M in the 85th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals illustrate the competitive context: the Intel Arc A530M scores 46614, a delta of 0.2 percent, while the AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 46601, also a delta of 0.2 percent. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 trails slightly at 46043, a 1.4 percent delta, and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation scores 45972, a 1.6 percent delta. The data therefore shows the RX 6550M leading its nearest recorded competition by margins that range from 0.2 percent to 1.6 percent.

For the MI308X, the absence of recorded benchmark scores means no direct performance comparison can be drawn from the database. The raw compute specifications, however, indicate a vastly different performance class. The MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and an identical 81.72 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, reflecting a 1:1 ratio. The RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS of FP32 and 11.63 TFLOPS of FP16, at a 2:1 ratio. The FP32 throughput of the MI308X is roughly 14 times higher than the RX 6550M, based on the recorded figures.

Where Each One Wins

The MI308X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 81.72 TFLOPS dwarfs the 5.816 TFLOPS of the RX 6550M. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s compares to 181.8 GTexel/s for the RX 6550M, and its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s exceeds the 144.0 GB/s of the RX 6550M by a substantial margin. The MI308X carries 192 GB of HBM3 memory across an 8192-bit bus, while the RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The MI308X also has 19,456 shading units versus 1,024 for the RX 6550M, and 1,216 texture mapping units versus 64.

The RX 6550M wins in areas that matter for client-side graphics and mobile deployment. It has a pixel rate of 90.88 GPixel/s, while the MI308X is recorded at 0 MPixel/s, reflecting the latter's lack of traditional raster output units. The RX 6550M supports 16 ray tracing cores, whereas the MI308X lists no RT cores. The RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI308X lists N/A for all three APIs. The RX 6550M also has display outputs described as portable device dependent, while the MI308X has no outputs at all.

The RX 6550M wins on practical deployability in mobile systems. Its 80 W TDP allows integration as an IGP, whereas the MI308X requires 750 W and an OAM module slot. The RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, which suits laptop platforms, while the MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16 for server integration. The RX 6550M has a production status of active, while the MI308X has no recorded production status.

Architecture Differences

The MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The RX 6550M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 24 chip, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The MI308X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The RX 6550M integrates 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, with a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm².

The compute pipelines differ fundamentally. The MI308X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and zero ROPs, with no RT cores or tensor cores listed. The RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 16 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. The FP16 ratio differs as well: the MI308X runs FP16 at 1:1 with FP32, both at 81.72 TFLOPS, while the RX 6550M runs FP16 at 2:1, reaching 11.63 TFLOPS against 5.816 TFLOPS for FP32.

Memory architecture is another major split. The MI308X uses HBM3 with 192 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 6550M uses GDDR6 with 4 GB capacity, a 64-bit bus, and 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The effective memory clock rates also differ: the MI308X runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the RX 6550M runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The higher effective data rate of the GDDR6 memory cannot compensate for the much narrower bus and smaller capacity.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The MI308X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation with no series designation, while the RX 6550M belongs to the Radeon RX 6000 series within the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation. Clock speeds differ: the MI308X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz with no game clock, while the RX 6550M has a base clock of 2000 MHz, a boost clock of 2840 MHz, and a game clock of 2560 MHz.

Process and packaging differ: the MI308X uses a 5 nm process with a 1017 mm² die, while the RX 6550M uses a 6 nm process with a 107 mm² die. Transistor counts differ enormously, from 153,000 million down to 5,400 million. Power requirements differ: the MI308X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the RX 6550M has an 80 W TDP and no suggested PSU recorded. The MI308X is an OAM module with no power connectors listed, and the RX 6550M is an IGP with no power connectors listed.

Interface and output capabilities differ. The MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has no display outputs, while the RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4 and has portable device dependent display outputs. API support is absent on the MI308X, with N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ by roughly eleven months: the MI308X released on December 5, 2023, and the RX 6550M released on January 3, 2023. The MI308X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor, while the RX 6550M lists Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 5.816 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon RX 6550M.

Q: What benchmark scores does the RX 6550M record in the database?

A: The RX 6550M scores 42536 in Geekbench OpenCL and 50867 in Geekbench Vulkan, giving an average benchmark score of 46702 and an 85th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

Q: Does the MI308X support ray tracing?

A: No. The MI308X lists no RT cores, while the RX 6550M has 16 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each accelerator?

A: The MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which accelerator supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare to the RX 6550M?

A: The Intel Arc A530M scores 46614 (0.2 percent delta), the AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 46601 (0.2 percent delta), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 scores 46043 (1.4 percent delta), and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation scores 45972 (1.6 percent delta). The RX 6550M leads all four recorded rivals.