AMD Instinct MI308X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a stark asymmetry: the AMD Instinct MI308X has no benchmark scores in the database, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile has nine recorded results. This means direct numerical comparisons are impossible, and the analysis must rely on the architectural specifications and the relative positioning of the RTX 4050 Mobile against its nearest rivals.

The RTX 4050 Mobile’s average benchmark score is 19,049, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6600 with an average score of 19,036 (a 0.1% difference), the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 at 19,030 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA Tesla K20m at 19,089 (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation at 18,954 (0.5% ahead). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, indicating that the RTX 4050 Mobile sits in a tightly clustered performance band where minor test variance could reorder the standings.

Breaking down the RTX 4050 Mobile’s individual benchmark results, the Geekbench OpenCL score of 74,748 and Vulkan score of 75,235 show strong compute performance in those specific workloads. The Passmark suite tells a different story: DirectX 9 scores 184, DirectX 10 scores 79, DirectX 11 scores 130, and DirectX 12 scores 61. The Passmark G3D score is 14,423, while the GPU compute score is 5,947, and the G2D score is 633. The disparity between the Geekbench and Passmark results suggests the RTX 4050 Mobile performs better in certain API environments, with DirectX 9 showing the highest Passmark score despite being an older API.

For the MI308X, the absence of benchmark data means its percentile rank of 50 and average score of 0 are placeholders rather than measurements. The database records no head-to-head benchmark entries, no wins for either product, and no nearest rivals for the MI308X. This creates a fundamental limitation: the MI308X cannot be positioned against the RTX 4050 Mobile through observed performance, only through its declared specifications.

Where Each One Wins

Without shared benchmark results, the wins must be inferred from the specification sheets. The MI308X dominates in raw compute resources. Its FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is roughly nine times the RTX 4050 Mobile’s 8.986 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance matches at 81.72 TFLOPS compared to 8.986 TFLOPS. The MI308X has 19,456 shading units versus 2,560 on the RTX 4050 Mobile, and 1,216 texture mapping units versus 80. The texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s on the MI308X dwarfs the 140.4 GTexel/s on the RTX 4050 Mobile, indicating a 18-fold advantage in texture fill.

Memory capacity and bandwidth favor the MI308X overwhelmingly: 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus delivering 5.32 TB/s, compared to 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus delivering 192.0 GB/s. The MI308X’s memory bandwidth is 27.7 times higher, and its capacity is 32 times larger. These figures point to the MI308X being designed for workloads where massive datasets and high-throughput memory access are critical, such as large-scale compute or AI training.

The RTX 4050 Mobile claims wins in areas the MI308X lacks entirely. The RTX 4050 Mobile has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, while the MI308X records null values for both. The RTX 4050 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI308X lists N/A for all three APIs. The pixel rate of 84.24 GPixel/s on the RTX 4050 Mobile contrasts with 0 MPixel/s on the MI308X, reflecting the MI308X’s absence of display outputs and rasterization hardware. The RTX 4050 Mobile also has a production status of Active, while the MI308X’s status is null in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The MI308X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip based on CDNA 3.0 architecture, which is AMD’s compute-focused lineage within the Instinct (MIx) generation. The RTX 4050 Mobile uses the AD107 chip based on Ada Lovelace, NVIDIA’s graphics-oriented architecture in the GeForce 40 Mobile generation. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: the MI308X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the RTX 4050 Mobile has 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die. The transistor density of 150.4M per mm² on the MI308X exceeds the 118.9M per mm² on the RTX 4050 Mobile, indicating the MI308X uses a denser design despite the larger physical footprint.

Clock behavior differs as well. The MI308X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the RTX 4050 Mobile runs at 1455 MHz base and 1755 MHz boost. The MI308X’s higher boost clock, combined with its massive shading unit count, explains its TFLOPS advantage. Memory clocks show the MI308X at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective, while the RTX 4050 Mobile runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. The RTX 4050 Mobile’s faster effective memory speed per pin is offset by the MI308X’s vastly wider bus.

Power and physical form factor separate the two completely. The MI308X has a TDP of 750 W and is an OAM Module with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, whereas the RTX 4050 Mobile has a TDP of 50 W and is an IGP with no suggested PSU listed. Neither uses power connectors according to the data. The bus interface differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI308X versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX 4050 Mobile. The MI308X has no display outputs, while the RTX 4050 Mobile’s outputs are portable device dependent.

Release dates show the MI308X launched on December 5, 2023, while the RTX 4050 Mobile launched on January 2, 2023. The predecessor relationships also differ: the MI308X follows the Radeon Instinct line, while the RTX 4050 Mobile follows GeForce 30 Mobile and has its successor listed as GeForce 50 Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Instinct MI308X have no benchmark scores in the database?

A: The database records zero benchmark entries for the MI308X, with an average score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50. This contrasts with the RTX 4050 Mobile, which has nine recorded benchmark results and an average score of 19,049.

Q: How does the RTX 4050 Mobile compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile’s average score of 19,049 is 0.1% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036) and the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19,030), 0.2% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19,089), and 0.5% higher than the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two GPUs?

A: The MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4050 Mobile has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports more graphics APIs?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its compute-oriented design without graphics API support.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The MI308X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The RTX 4050 Mobile has a TDP of 50 W and no suggested PSU listed. Neither GPU uses power connectors according to the database.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The MI308X contains 153,000 million transistors, while the RTX 4050 Mobile contains 18,900 million. This is an 8.1-fold difference in transistor count, with the MI308X also having a higher transistor density at 150.4M per mm² versus 118.9M per mm².

The Verdict

The data indicates two GPUs engineered for entirely different purposes. The MI308X’s specification sheet positions it as a high-throughput compute accelerator: 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, 192 GB HBM3, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and a 750 W TDP. The RTX 4050 Mobile’s benchmark results and feature set position it as a graphics-oriented mobile processor: 8.986 TFLOPS FP32, 6 GB GDDR6, ray tracing and tensor cores, and a 50 W TDP.

For workloads requiring massive memory capacity and bandwidth, such as large model inference or data-intensive compute, the MI308X’s numbers are decisive on paper. The 192 GB memory pool exceeds the RTX 4050 Mobile’s 6 GB by a factor of 32, and the 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is 27.7 times higher. The FP32 throughput advantage of roughly 9.1 times reinforces this direction.

For graphics rendering, gaming, or any workload requiring DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, the RTX 4050 Mobile is the only option with recorded capability. The MI308X lists N/A for all three APIs, has no display outputs, and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The RTX 4050 Mobile’s ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and active production status make it a functional graphics solution.

The RTX 4050 Mobile’s benchmark scores indicate it competes within a narrow band of similar GPUs, all within 0.5% of each other. Its 63rd percentile ranking versus the MI308X’s 50th percentile is based on different data availability, so direct percentile comparison is not meaningful.

Specification Differences

The database records the following differences between the two GPUs:

• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram versus AD107
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 versus Ada Lovelace
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus GeForce 40 Mobile
• Transistors: 153,000 million versus 18,900 million
• Die Size: 1017 mm² versus 159 mm²
• Transistor Density: 150.4M / mm² versus 118.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz versus 1455 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2100 MHz versus 1755 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective versus 2000 MHz 16 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 192 GB versus 6 GB
• Memory Type: HBM3 versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit versus 96 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 5.32 TB/s versus 192.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 19,456 versus 2,560
• Texture Mapping Units: 1,216 versus 80
• Raster Operations Pipelines: 0 versus 48
• Ray Tracing Cores: null versus 20
• Tensor Cores: null versus 80
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 84.24 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 140.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 8.986 TFLOPS
• FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 8.986 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 750 W versus 50 W
• Slot Width: OAM Module versus IGP
• Suggested PSU: 1150 W versus null
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4
• Production Status: null versus Active
• Release Date: 2023-12-05 versus 2023-01-02
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus GeForce 30 Mobile
• Successor: null versus GeForce 50 Mobile
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 50 versus 63
• Average Benchmark Score: 0 versus 19,049