AMD Instinct MI308X vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two processors cleanly by intended use, not by overlapping capability. The AMD Instinct MI308X is a compute-oriented accelerator with enormous memory capacity and raw throughput, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM is an integrated graphics processor with a display output and a far smaller physical footprint. Benchmark results show the MI308X winning in every category tied to raw compute volume, memory bandwidth, and shading throughput. The N1 20SM wins in none of the measured compute metrics, but it holds the sole advantage in display connectivity, as it is the only one of the two with a video output.

The MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, compared to 12.01 TFLOPS for the N1 20SM in both precisions. That is a 6.8x advantage in raw floating-point throughput for the AMD part. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with the MI308X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part. The pixel rate comparison is inverted in a meaningful way: the MI308X reports 0 MPixel/s while the N1 20SM reports 56.30 GPixel/s, reflecting that the AMD accelerator has no raster output units and no display path, while the NVIDIA IGP is designed to drive a panel.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also separate the two. The MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s. The N1 20SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s. The bandwidth gap is roughly 19.5x in favor of the AMD part. For workloads that move large datasets, this difference dominates any other consideration.

The N1 20SM does have dedicated ray tracing cores (20) and tensor cores (80), while the MI308X lists neither field as populated. However, the MI308X still holds the overall compute lead by a wide margin in every throughput metric the database records, so the presence of specialized units does not translate into a benchmark win for the NVIDIA part.

Architecture Differences

The two devices come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Instinct MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB20B chip, also manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Both share the same process node and foundry, but the silicon implementations diverge sharply.

The MI308X die measures 1017 mm² and contains 153,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The N1 20SM die measures 382 mm², and the database records transistor count as unknown. The AMD chip is therefore roughly 2.7x larger in die area, with a transistor count that is fully specified, while the NVIDIA chip leaves that field blank.

Memory architecture is a major divide. The MI308X uses HBM3 memory totaling 192 GB on an 8192-bit bus, with memory clock at 1300 MHz and 5.2 Gbps effective data rate. The N1 20SM uses LPDDR5X totaling 128 GB on a 256-bit bus, with memory clock at 1067 MHz and 8.5 Gbps effective data rate. The AMD part trades a narrower per-pin data rate for a vastly wider bus and higher total bandwidth.

Compute unit organization also differs. The MI308X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs. The N1 20SM has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The AMD device has no ROPs because it has no display outputs, while the NVIDIA device includes 24 ROPs to support its single HDMI output.

Clock behavior differs as well. The MI308X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The N1 20SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a higher boost clock of 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part boosts 246 MHz higher, but its shading unit count is far lower, so the clock advantage does not close the throughput gap.

Power and physical configuration separate the two. The MI308X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W, and it mounts as an OAM Module with no power connectors listed. The N1 20SM has an unknown TDP, no suggested PSU, and is an IGP with no power connectors. The MI308X is a standalone accelerator module, while the N1 20SM is integrated into a platform.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two devices, and their average benchmark scores are both zero, with both sitting at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. However, the recorded specification data allows direct comparison of throughput metrics that function as benchmark proxies.

The largest gap is in memory bandwidth. The MI308X delivers 5.32 TB/s, which is 19.5x the 273.2 GB/s of the N1 20SM. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound, such as large matrix operations or high-volume data movement, this difference is decisive. The MI308X also holds a commanding lead in texture rate, at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s, a 6.8x difference.

FP32 throughput shows the same 6.8x ratio: 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI308X versus 12.01 TFLOPS for the N1 20SM. FP16 performance is identical to FP32 on both parts, at 81.72 TFLOPS for the AMD accelerator and 12.01 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA IGP, meaning neither device uses a dedicated half-precision path that doubles throughput.

The one metric where the N1 20SM leads is pixel rate. The NVIDIA part records 56.30 GPixel/s, while the MI308X records 0 MPixel/s. This is not a performance advantage in the conventional sense; it reflects the absence of ROPs and display outputs on the AMD accelerator. The N1 20SM can generate pixels for display, and the MI308X cannot.

Clock speed comparison shows the N1 20SM with a higher boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 2100 MHz for the MI308X. But the MI308X compensates with a higher base clock of 1000 MHz versus 741 MHz, and its massive shading unit count overwhelms the NVIDIA part regardless of boost behavior.

Release timing also differs. The MI308X was released on 2023-12-05, while the N1 20SM has a release date of 2026-05-31. The NVIDIA part is listed as Active in production status, while the AMD part leaves production status unspecified.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM has 273.2 GB/s. The AMD part leads by roughly 19.5x.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI308X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI308X has no display outputs and records a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has one HDMI output and a pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput of each device?

A: The MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, and the N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32. The AMD accelerator leads by 6.8x.

Q: How do the memory types differ?

A: The MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus. The N1 20SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which device has dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The AMD Instinct MI308X does not list ray tracing cores or tensor cores in the database.

Q: What are the release dates for these two parts?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X was released on 2023-12-05. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a release date of 2026-05-31.

Specification Differences

The two devices differ in nearly every recorded specification field. Process node and foundry are shared, with both on 5 nm at TSMC, but everything else diverges.

The MI308X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the N1 20SM uses Blackwell 2.0 with the GB20B chip. The MI308X die is 1017 mm² with 153,000 million transistors and a density of 150.4M per mm². The N1 20SM die is 382 mm² with unknown transistor count and density.

Clock speeds differ: the MI308X has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the N1 20SM has a 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well, with the MI308X at 1300 MHz and 5.2 Gbps effective, and the N1 20SM at 1067 MHz and 8.5 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration differs completely: 192 GB HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus for the AMD part, versus 128 GB LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus for the NVIDIA part. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.

Compute resources differ: 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs for the MI308X, versus 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 24 ROPs for the N1 20SM. The NVIDIA part has 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores, while the AMD part lists none. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI308X and 56.30 GPixel/s for the N1 20SM. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are both 81.72 TFLOPS for the AMD part and 12.01 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part.

Power and physical specs differ: the MI308X has a 750 W TDP, a suggested PSU of 1150 W, and mounts as an OAM Module. The N1 20SM has an unknown TDP, no suggested PSU, and is an IGP. Both have no power connectors and both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The MI308X has no display outputs, while the N1 20SM has one HDMI output. Neither lists API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Release dates differ, with the MI308X on 2023-12-05 and the N1 20SM on 2026-05-31. Production status is unspecified for the AMD part and Active for the NVIDIA part. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The AMD Instinct MI308X is for compute-heavy workloads that require maximum throughput and memory capacity. Its 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, 5.32 TB/s of memory bandwidth, and 192 GB of HBM3 place it in a different performance class from the N1 20SM. The 750 W TDP and OAM Module form factor indicate it is designed for a server or accelerator chassis, not a desktop system.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM is for a platform that needs integrated graphics with a display output. Its single HDMI output, 24 ROPs, and 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate make it functional for display purposes, and its 128 GB of LPDDR5X and 256-bit bus provide memory capacity, though at far lower bandwidth. With an unknown TDP and IGP form factor, it fits into a system as a built-in processor rather than a standalone accelerator.

For raw compute, the MI308X leads by 6.8x in FP32, FP16, and texture rate, and by 19.5x in memory bandwidth. For display output, the N1 20SM is the only option. The MI308X has no display outputs and no ROPs, so it cannot drive a monitor. The N1 20SM has no path to match the AMD part in any compute metric.

Selection comes down to the workload. A system that needs to process large datasets with maximum floating-point throughput requires the MI308X. A system that needs integrated graphics with a display connection requires the N1 20SM. There is no overlap in their strengths.