AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon 8060S Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X and the AMD Radeon 8060S occupy entirely different corners of the GPU landscape, and the data makes that division immediately clear. The Instinct MI325X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 1000 W power envelope. It is built for a single purpose: raw, sustained number crunching on a massive scale. The Radeon 8060S, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor with full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, designed to render frames and drive portable displays.

The benchmark records in the database only include entries for the Radeon 8060S. Its average benchmark score is 55,757, placing it at the 87th percentile among all GPUs. The Instinct MI325X has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile, but that figure reflects the absence of standardized gaming or graphics workloads, not a lack of compute capability. The MI325X instead wins on sheer throughput metrics: its FP32 output is 81.72 TFLOPS, its texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s, and its memory bandwidth is 6.14 TB/s. The Radeon 8060S delivers 14.85 TFLOPS FP32, 464.0 GTexel/s, and system-dependent bandwidth. The MI325X has no pixel rate, listing 0 MPixel/s, while the 8060S pushes 185.6 GPixel/s.

The use-case split is straightforward. The MI325X wins any workload that lives in floating-point compute, memory-bound operations, or large-scale data processing. The Radeon 8060S wins anything that requires rasterization, ray tracing, or a graphics API. The 8060S has 40 ray tracing cores and 64 ROPs; the MI325X has zero ROPs and no listed RT cores. One device is a renderer, the other is a number engine.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural families and different manufacturing processes. The Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, built around the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The Radeon 8060S uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm TSMC process, based on the Strix Halo chip. The MI325X is part of AMD's Instinct (MIx) generation, while the 8060S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation.

The transistor counts paint a dramatic picture. The MI325X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The Radeon 8060S has an unknown transistor count and a 308 mm² die. That die size difference alone, more than three times larger in the MI325X, signals a fundamentally different design philosophy: the accelerator spreads enormous resources across a huge slab of silicon, while the integrated part packs a modest configuration into a much smaller area.

Memory architecture separates the two even further. The MI325X carries 256 GB of HBM3e on a 8192-bit bus, with memory clocks at 1500 MHz and 6 Gbps effective, producing 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 8060S uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. That is not a minor distinction. A dedicated 256 GB pool with 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth is an order of magnitude beyond what any shared-memory integrated solution can offer, regardless of the host system.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI325X runs a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The Radeon 8060S runs a 1295 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost. The integrated part clocks higher, which makes sense for a 55 W part that needs to extract performance from a limited resource pool. The MI325X instead relies on massive parallel resources and memory throughput, not raw clock speed.

The compute configurations diverge sharply. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and zero ROPs. The Radeon 8060S has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI325X has no RT cores listed; the 8060S has 40. The MI325X lists no graphics API support, while the 8060S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The power figures reflect the gap: the MI325X carries a 1000 W TDP with a 1400 W suggested PSU, while the 8060S carries a 55 W TDP and no suggested PSU. The MI325X ships as an OAM module with no power connectors, and the 8060S is an IGP with no power connectors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two devices. The wins column shows zero for both. That absence is itself informative: no standardized benchmark suite runs both a no-output compute accelerator and an integrated graphics part on equal footing. The only way to compare them is through their separate recorded metrics.

The Radeon 8060S has three benchmark scores in the database. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 it scores 2,162. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 84,626. In Geekbench Vulkan it scores 80,483. Its average benchmark score is 55,757, which places it at the 87th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB with an average score of 55,698 and a delta of 0.1 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 with 56,083 and a delta of -0.6 percent, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X with 54,828 and a delta of 1.7 percent, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 with 54,247 and a delta of 2.8 percent. The 8060S essentially sits in the same performance class as the RTX 4080 and RTX 5080 in these aggregate workloads, a notable result for an integrated part with a 55 W TDP.

The MI325X has no benchmark scores. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile sits at 50. That does not mean the device is slow; it means the database has no standardized workload that applies to it. Its FP32 figure of 81.72 TFLOPS is more than 5.5 times the 8060S's 14.85 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is more than 5.5 times the 8060S's 464.0 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s is not directly comparable to the 8060S's system-dependent figure, but no shared memory configuration approaches that level.

The biggest wins each way are clear. The 8060S wins on graphics-specific metrics: 185.6 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s, and functional ray tracing hardware. The MI325X wins on every compute-oriented metric: FP32, FP16, texture rate, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and shading units. The FP32 comparison alone, 81.72 TFLOPS versus 14.85 TFLOPS, is a decisive margin that no workload on the 8060S can overcome.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon 8060S delivers 14.85 TFLOPS FP32. The MI325X is roughly 5.5 times faster in this metric.

Q: Does the Instinct MI325X support graphics rendering?

A: No. The MI325X has no display outputs, lists 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, and has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support. It is a compute-only accelerator.

Q: How does the Radeon 8060S compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The 8060S has an average benchmark score of 55,757. It is 0.1 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, 0.6 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080, 1.7 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X, and 2.8 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080.

Q: What memory does each GPU use?

A: The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 8060S uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all system dependent.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP and a 1400 W suggested PSU. The Radeon 8060S has a 55 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed. Both have no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing support?

A: The Radeon 8060S has 40 ray tracing cores. The MI325X has no RT cores listed.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI325X | AMD Radeon 8060S |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.5 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Strix Halo |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 308 mm² |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | unknown |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1295 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 256 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 6.14 TB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz 6 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Shading Units | 19,456 | 2,560 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 160 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| RT Cores | null | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 185.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 464.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 14.85 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 14.85 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | IGP |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | null |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Production Status | null | Active |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2025-01-05 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Polaris Mobile |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

The Verdict

The data describes two tools for two separate jobs. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a compute accelerator with 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, 256 GB of HBM3e, 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, and a 1000 W TDP. It has no graphics capability whatsoever, no display outputs, and no API support. Its design targets workloads that consume enormous data sets and demand sustained floating-point throughput. The 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs exist to feed compute pipelines, not to rasterize scenes.

The AMD Radeon 8060S is an integrated graphics processor with 14.85 TFLOPS FP32, 40 ray tracing cores, full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a 55 W TDP. Its average benchmark score of 55,757 places it in the same performance class as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, which scores 54,247, and the RTX 5080, which scores 56,083. For a part that consumes 55 W, that is a remarkable density of graphics performance.

The release dates show a sequence: the MI325X arrived on 2024-10-09, and the Radeon 8060S followed on 2025-01-05. The MI325X's predecessor is the Radeon Instinct line, while the 8060S succeeds Polaris Mobile. Neither has a successor listed.

Who should pick which depends entirely on the workload. A system that needs to render frames, drive a display, or run graphics APIs should use the Radeon 8060S. A system that needs to process massive compute workloads, move data through a 6.14 TB/s memory pipe, or operate without any display output should use the Instinct MI325X. The two do not compete. They coexist in different segments, and the recorded data confirms that neither can substitute for the other in its respective domain.