AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon 760M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI325X and AMD Radeon 760M occupy entirely different segments of the hardware spectrum. The MI325X is a 1000 W OAM accelerator built for data center compute, while the 760M is a 15 W integrated graphics processor designed for mobile and compact systems. The database records no shared benchmarks between the two, and the MI325X has no benchmark scores or nearest rivals listed. The Radeon 760M, in contrast, has ten recorded benchmark results and a percentile ranking of 35 among all GPUs.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear split: the AMD Instinct MI325X is an accelerator with no consumer-facing benchmark results in the database, and the AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated GPU with measurable performance in standard graphics tests. The MI325X targets server and AI workloads with 256 GB of HBM3e memory, an 8192-bit bus, and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32, uses system shared memory, and operates within a 15 W power envelope.

For users selecting between these two parts, the decision rests entirely on the intended workload. The MI325X provides 256 GB of dedicated memory and a 6.14 TB/s memory bandwidth, figures that dwarf the system-dependent shared memory configuration of the 760M. The 760M, however, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI325X lists no API support in the database. The 760M also includes 8 ray tracing cores and 16 raster output units, features absent from the MI325X's recorded specifications.

The MI325X shows a transistor count of 153,000 million on a 1017 mm² die, compared to 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die for the 760M. The compute disparity is substantial: the MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP16 and FP32, roughly 15 times the raw FP32 throughput of the 760M. But the 760M draws 15 W versus 1000 W, making it suitable for systems without dedicated power connectors. The MI325X requires a suggested PSU of 1400 W and uses an OAM module slot, while the 760M is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The MI325X wins in every metric related to raw compute density and memory capacity. Its 256 GB of HBM3e memory exceeds any system-shared allocation the 760M could access. The 8192-bit memory bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth enable data movement that the 760M's system-dependent bandwidth cannot approach. The MI325X also posts a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, over 30 times the 760M's 83.17 GTexel/s.

The 760M wins in power efficiency and feature completeness for graphics output. At 15 W, it operates at 1.5 percent of the MI325X's power draw. The 760M provides display outputs (motherboard dependent), while the MI325X has no display outputs. The 760M supports modern graphics APIs, including DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X lists N/A for all three APIs. The 760M also has 8 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing, whereas the MI325X does not list ray tracing cores.

In benchmark terms, the 760M records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 20,255, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,336. Its Passmark results include 5,310 for G3D, 2,840 for GPU compute, 890 for G2D, 65 for DirectX 9, 52 for DirectX 11, 25 for DirectX 12, and 19 for DirectX 10. The average benchmark score across these tests is 6,019, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. The 760M uses the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process. Both come from AMD and both use TSMC as the foundry, but the architectural families diverge significantly. CDNA 3.0 targets compute acceleration, while RDNA 3.0 targets graphics rendering.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ by an order of magnitude. The MI325X integrates 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The 760M integrates 25,390 million transistors across a 178 mm² die, with a density of 142.6 million per mm². The MI325X's larger die and higher transistor count enable its massive compute and memory subsystems, but the 760M achieves comparable transistor density on a smaller, more power-efficient process.

The shading unit counts reflect the compute versus graphics split. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and zero raster output units, resulting in a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, delivering a pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s. The MI325X's texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s vastly exceeds the 760M's 83.17 GTexel/s, but the 760M can actually output pixels to a display.

Clock speeds show different strategies. The MI325X runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The 760M runs at a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz. The higher boost clock on the 760M compensates partially for its smaller compute core count, but the raw throughput gap remains large.

Memory architecture differs completely. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, achieving 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The 760M uses system shared memory, with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. The MI325X's memory configuration suits large model training and inference workloads, while the 760M relies on the host system's memory pool.

Power delivery and physical formats diverge sharply. The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W, uses an OAM module slot, has no power connectors, and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. The 760M has a TDP of 15 W, is an IGP, has no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU. The MI325X connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The MI325X was released on October 9, 2024, with a predecessor of Radeon Instinct and no recorded successor. The 760M was released on January 30, 2024, with a predecessor of Navi II IGP and a production status of Active. The MI325X has no production status recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more FP32 compute power?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, compared to 5.323 TFLOPS for the Radeon 760M. The MI325X also delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP16, while the 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS of FP16.

Q: Can the MI325X output video to a display?

A: No. The database lists display outputs as "No outputs" for the MI325X. The Radeon 760M, in contrast, has display outputs listed as "Motherboard Dependent."

Q: What memory does each GPU use?

A: The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e memory with an 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The 760M uses system shared memory, with system-dependent size, bus width, and bandwidth.

Q: Does the Radeon 760M support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The 760M includes 8 ray tracing cores. The MI325X does not list ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The 760M has a TDP of 15 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: How does the 760M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 760M's average benchmark score is 6,019. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 6,001 (0.3 percent lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M scores 6,000 (0.3 percent lower), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5,996 (0.4 percent lower), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6,049 (0.5 percent higher).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark results between the MI325X and the 760M, and the MI325X has no benchmark scores of its own. The wins count stands at 0 for both parts in direct comparison. This reflects the fundamental incompatibility of their target workloads: the MI325X is optimized for compute tasks that do not map to standard graphics benchmarks, while the 760M is designed for conventional rendering and API-based workloads.

The 760M's recorded benchmarks provide context for its performance tier. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 400. In Geekbench, it achieves 20,255 in OpenCL and 30,336 in Vulkan. Passmark results show 5,310 in G3D, 2,840 in GPU compute, 890 in G2D, 65 in DirectX 9, 52 in DirectX 11, 25 in DirectX 12, and 19 in DirectX 10. These scores place the 760M at the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 6,019.

The nearest rivals for the 760M, based on average benchmark score, are tightly clustered. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 trails by 0.3 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M trails by 0.3 percent, and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server trails by 0.4 percent. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 leads by 0.5 percent. This grouping indicates that the 760M sits in a competitive band where small score differences separate products.

For the MI325X, the absence of benchmark scores and nearest rivals means the database cannot rank it among other GPUs in a traditional sense. Its percentile of 50 reflects the lack of recorded performance data rather than a measured performance level. The raw specifications, however, indicate a compute accelerator with capabilities far beyond typical graphics processors: 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 256 GB of HBM3e memory with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth.

The FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI325X versus 5.323 TFLOPS for the 760M represents a 15.35 times difference in raw compute. The texture rate difference is even larger: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 83.17 GTexel/s, a 30.7 times gap. The MI325X's pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s versus the 760M's 41.58 GPixel/s shows that the MI325X does not perform traditional rasterization.

Power consumption tells the inverse story. The MI325X demands 1000 W, the 760M draws 15 W, a 66.7 times difference in favor of the integrated part. The MI325X requires a 1400 W suggested PSU and an OAM module slot, while the 760M fits as an IGP with no additional power connectors. These figures frame the choice: the MI325X provides extreme compute density at extreme power cost, while the 760M offers modest graphics performance within a minimal power budget.

The release dates show a newer MI325X (October 2024) and an earlier 760M (January 2024). The MI325X succeeds Radeon Instinct, while the 760M succeeds Navi II IGP. Both use TSMC fabrication, but on different nodes: 5 nm for the MI325X, 4 nm for the 760M. The process node difference explains why the 760M achieves a slightly lower transistor density (142.6M per mm²) than the MI325X (150.4M per mm²) despite the smaller overall design.

In practical terms, the database presents two products with no overlap in benchmark methodology. The MI325X cannot be evaluated on the same tests as the 760M because it lacks any recorded benchmark scores. The 760M cannot approach the MI325X's compute or memory specifications. Users seeking numerical comparison must rely on the specification tables, which show a clear hierarchy: the MI325X dominates in compute, memory, and bandwidth, while the 760M dominates in power efficiency, display output, and API support.