AMD Instinct MI308X vs NVIDIA Jetson T4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Instinct MI308X and NVIDIA Jetson T4000 contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results, no individual benchmark scores, and no average benchmark scores for either product. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero. Without measured performance deltas or rival comparisons, numerical comparison of actual workloads is not possible from the database.

What the data does provide is raw compute specification differences. The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the NVIDIA Jetson T4000 delivers 4.700 TFLOPS FP32 and 4.700 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The ratio is approximately 17.4 times higher peak FP32 throughput for the AMD part. Texture rate differs similarly: 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI308X versus 73.44 GTexel/s for the T4000, a factor of roughly 34.8. Pixel rate is zero on the AMD side, as this part has no ROPs; the T4000 manages 24.48 GPixel/s.

Memory bandwidth is another major split. The MI308X has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth across an 8192-bit HBM3 interface, versus 273.2 GB/s on the T4000's 256-bit LPDDR5X bus. That is about 19.5 times higher bandwidth. Capacity also favors AMD: 192 GB versus 64 GB. These are the only head-to-head numerical comparisons the database supports, and they all point the same direction: the MI308X is in a different compute class.

Clock behavior differs as well. The MI308X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the T4000 runs fixed at 1530 MHz base and boost. The AMD part has a much larger boost range, indicating it can scale up significantly under load. The T4000's locked clocks suggest a power-constrained design that does not vary frequency.

The database shows zero wins for each side in the head-to-head field. That is not a statement of parity; it reflects the absence of benchmark entries. The specification gaps, however, are substantial and measurable, and they form the basis for the sections that follow.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X records 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, versus 4.700 TFLOPS FP32 for the NVIDIA Jetson T4000. That is roughly 17.4 times higher peak single-precision throughput for the AMD part.

Q: What memory capacities do the two cards offer?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 has 64 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Are there any display outputs on either card?

A: No. Both the AMD Instinct MI308X and the NVIDIA Jetson T4000 list "No outputs" in the database. Neither card is intended for direct display connection.

Q: What is the power consumption of each part?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 has a TDP of 90 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 includes 12 RT cores, while the AMD Instinct MI308X lists no RT cores. The AMD part also lists no tensor cores, whereas the T4000 has 64 tensor cores.

Q: What is the release timeline for these products?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has a release date of 2023-12-05. The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 has a release date of 2026-01-04, making it a later product by more than two years.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the NVIDIA Jetson T4000?

A: The launch MSRP is 1,999 USD. The AMD Instinct MI308X has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Q: What is the physical form factor of each card?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X is an OAM module with no specified dimensions. The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 is an IGP with dimensions of 87 mm length (3.4 inches), 100 mm height (3.9 inches), and 15 mm width (0.6 inches).

The Verdict

The database presents two products with opposite design philosophies. The AMD Instinct MI308X is a high-power, high-throughput accelerator built for maximum compute density: 19456 shading units, 1216 TMUs, 192 GB HBM3, and 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. It targets workloads where raw FP32 and FP16 throughput and enormous memory capacity are the primary requirements. Its 750 W TDP and OAM form factor indicate a server-grade installation, not a desktop part.

The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 is a low-power embedded module. At 90 W TDP and 64 GB LPDDR5X, it trades peak compute for efficiency and compactness. It includes RT cores and tensor cores, which the MI308X lacks entirely. Its fixed 1530 MHz clocks and IGP slot width suggest a deployment where cooling and space are constrained, and where power draw must stay modest.

For a user selecting between these two, the choice is not about which is "better" in an absolute sense, but which matches the deployment environment. If the task is large-scale training or inference with massive models and high bandwidth, the MI308X's specification set is the only one that fits. If the task is edge inference, embedded vision, or a low-power appliance with some tensor and ray tracing capability, the T4000's profile is the appropriate match. The data does not suggest either card is a substitute for the other.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification field.

• Chip and architecture: MI308X uses "Aqua Vanjaram" on CDNA 3.0; T4000 uses "GB10B" on Blackwell.
• Process node: Both are 5 nm and fabricated by TSMC, but transistor counts differ: MI308X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die; T4000 has an unknown transistor count on a 391 mm² die.
• Transistor density: MI308X records 150.4M / mm²; T4000 has no density figure.
• Clocks: MI308X base 1000 MHz, boost 2100 MHz; T4000 base and boost both 1530 MHz.
• Memory: MI308X has 192 GB HBM3, 8192-bit bus, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth; T4000 has 64 GB LPDDR5X, 256-bit bus, 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.
• Memory clock: MI308X at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective); T4000 at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).
• Shading units: MI308X has 19456; T4000 has 1536.
• TMUs: MI308X has 1216; T4000 has 48.
• ROPs: MI308X has 0; T4000 has 16.
• RT cores: MI308X has none; T4000 has 12.
• Tensor cores: MI308X has none; T4000 has 64.
• Pixel rate: MI308X at 0 MPixel/s; T4000 at 24.48 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: MI308X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s; T4000 at 73.44 GTexel/s.
• FP32: MI308X at 81.72 TFLOPS; T4000 at 4.700 TFLOPS.
• FP16: MI308X at 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1); T4000 at 4.700 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: MI308X at 750 W; T4000 at 90 W.
• Slot width: MI308X is OAM Module; T4000 is IGP.
• Power connectors: Both list "None".
• Suggested PSU: MI308X at 1150 W; T4000 at 250 W.
• Bus interface: MI308X is PCIe 5.0 x16; T4000 is PCIe 5.0 x8.
• Display outputs: Both have "No outputs".
• Dimensions: MI308X has no recorded dimensions; T4000 is 87 mm x 100 mm x 15 mm.
• Production status: MI308X has no status; T4000 is "Active".
• Release date: MI308X on 2023-12-05; T4000 on 2026-01-04.
• Predecessor: MI308X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct; T4000's predecessor is Server Hopper.
• Successor: MI308X has none recorded; T4000's successor is Server Rubin.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The MI308X is built on CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-focused architecture. It pairs 19456 shaders with 1216 TMUs and no ROPs, meaning it is not designed for rasterized graphics output. The absence of RT cores and tensor cores confirms this: it is a pure compute accelerator. Its 192 GB HBM3 stack with an 8192-bit bus provides a massive memory footprint and extreme bandwidth, suited to large matrix operations and big data sets. The 1017 mm² die houses 153,000 million transistors at a density of 150.4M per mm².

The T4000 is a Blackwell architecture part, NVIDIA's server and embedded line. It has 1536 shaders, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 12 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. The presence of RT and tensor hardware means it carries a broader feature set than the MI308X, even if raw shader throughput is far lower. Its 391 mm² die is smaller, and its LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus is a low-power design choice. The fixed 1530 MHz clocks indicate a conservative power envelope, consistent with a 90 W TDP.

Both use a 5 nm TSMC process, but the MI308X packs far more transistors into a larger die. The T4000's transistor count is not recorded, so a direct density comparison is unavailable. The MI308X's memory clock of 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) is lower than the T4000's 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective), but the AMD part's 8192-bit bus dwarfs the T4000's 256-bit bus in total bandwidth.

The MI308X has no API support (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan all N/A), as does the T4000. Neither card exposes graphics APIs, reinforcing that both are compute or inference devices, not consumer GPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI308X wins on any metric involving peak compute throughput, memory capacity, or memory bandwidth. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures are roughly 17.4 times the T4000's numbers. Texture rate is even more lopsided: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 73.44 GTexel/s. The 192 GB HBM3 pool with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth is a decisive advantage for workloads that must hold large model weights or data sets in memory. The MI308X also has a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8), which may reduce host transfer bottlenecks in some systems.

The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 wins on power efficiency, physical footprint, and feature completeness. Its 90 W TDP is one-eighth of the MI308X's 750 W, and its suggested PSU of 250 W is far lower than the 1150 W suggested for the MI308X. The T4000 is an IGP with recorded dimensions of 87 mm by 100 mm by 15 mm, whereas the MI308X is an OAM module with no dimensions recorded. The T4000 includes 12 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, which the MI308X entirely lacks. It also has 16 ROPs and a 24.48 GPixel/s pixel rate, giving it at least some graphics output capability on paper, though the database lists no display outputs for either card.

For deployment scenarios, the MI308X is the choice for high-throughput compute where power and space are not limiting factors. The T4000 is the choice for embedded or edge systems where low power draw, small size, and a fixed clock envelope are critical. The data does not show any benchmark-based overlap between the two; they occupy separate categories of hardware.