AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI325X or the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D. Both parts show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. Consequently, there are no measurable wins for either product in synthetic workloads, no percentile deltas to report, and no rival comparisons to draw upon. The absence of data does not indicate equivalence; rather, it reflects the specialized nature of both accelerators, each targeting distinct workloads that fall outside the scope of standard consumer or workstation benchmark suites. The Instinct MI325X carries a 50th percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database, as does the Radeon AI PRO 9600D, but this percentile is derived from a zero-score baseline and therefore carries no comparative weight. The recorded data simply shows two accelerators with no overlapping benchmark results, so any head-to-head performance analysis must defer to architectural and specification-based reasoning until such data is populated.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators diverge fundamentally at the architecture level. The Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 48 chip, fabricated on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. Transistor counts reflect the scale gap: the MI325X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D integrates 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, yielding a density of 151.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The density figures are nearly identical, but the MI325X packs roughly three times the transistor budget into nearly three times the silicon area.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The MI325X carries 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, with no ROPs and no ray tracing cores listed. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D carries 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, and 48 ray tracing cores. The MI325X reports a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the Radeon AI PRO 9600D reports 193.9 GPixel/s and 387.8 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput on the MI325X is 81.72 TFLOPS, with FP16 at the same 81.72 TFLOPS on a 1:1 ratio. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D delivers 24.82 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, also on a 1:1 ratio. The MI325X therefore provides roughly 3.3 times the raw floating-point throughput of the Radeon AI PRO 9600D in both precisions.

Memory architecture reinforces the divide. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses 32 GB of GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The MI325X offers eight times the capacity and over ten times the bandwidth. Clock behavior also differs: the MI325X runs a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the Radeon AI PRO 9600D runs a 1080 MHz base, 2020 MHz boost, and a 1080 MHz game clock. The higher base clock on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D is offset by the far larger compute and memory resources on the Instinct part.

Thermal and physical profiles could not be more different. The MI325X is an OAM module with a 1000 W TDP, no power connectors (power is delivered through the module interface), and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. It has no display outputs and no supported graphics APIs, reflecting its role as a compute accelerator rather than a rendering device. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm by 111 mm by 19 mm, with a 150 W TDP, a single 16-pin power connector, a 450 W suggested PSU, and one DisplayPort 2.1a output. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X lists no API support at all. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D is marked as active in production status, while the MI325X has no production status listed. Release dates also separate the two: the MI325X launched on October 9, 2024, while the Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a release date of December 10, 2025, more than a year later. The MI325X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor; the Radeon AI PRO 9600D lists Radeon Pro Vega.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear functional separation. The Instinct MI325X is built for massive parallel compute with enormous memory capacity and bandwidth, suited to large-scale AI training, inference, and scientific workloads that can consume 256 GB of HBM3e and 6.14 TB/s of memory bandwidth. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D is a compact, single-slot accelerator with conventional graphics APIs, display output, and ray tracing support, suited to workstation rendering, professional visualization, and AI workloads that fit within a 32 GB GDDR6 frame buffer and a 150 W power envelope. The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 24.82 TFLOPS, a 3.3 times advantage in raw compute, and its memory bandwidth advantage is approximately 10.7 times that of the Radeon AI PRO 9600D. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D counters with a 1080 MHz base clock versus 1000 MHz, a 96 ROP count versus zero, 48 ray tracing cores versus none, and full graphics API support versus none. Neither part has benchmark scores in the database, so the verdict rests on architectural intent. The data suggests the MI325X for pure compute density and the Radeon AI PRO 9600D for interactive graphics and graphics-adjacent compute.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ in every major specification field.

• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 on the MI325X versus RDNA 4.0 on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Process node: 5 nm on the MI325X versus 4 nm on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Transistors: 153,000 million on the MI325X versus 53,900 million on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Die size: 1017 mm² on the MI325X versus 357 mm² on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Transistor density: 150.4M / mm² on the MI325X versus 151.0M / mm² on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D, essentially identical.
• Base clock: 1000 MHz on the MI325X versus 1080 MHz on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Boost clock: 2100 MHz on the MI325X versus 2020 MHz on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Game clock: absent on the MI325X versus 1080 MHz on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Memory clock: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on the MI325X versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Memory size: 256 GB on the MI325X versus 32 GB on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Memory type: HBM3e on the MI325X versus GDDR6 on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Memory bus width: 8192 bit on the MI325X versus 256 bit on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Memory bandwidth: 6.14 TB/s on the MI325X versus 576.0 GB/s on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Shading units: 19,456 on the MI325X versus 3,072 on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• TMUs: 1,216 on the MI325X versus 192 on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• ROPs: 0 on the MI325X versus 96 on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Ray tracing cores: absent on the MI325X versus 48 on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s on the MI325X versus 193.9 GPixel/s on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s on the MI325X versus 387.8 GTexel/s on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• FP32 / FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS on the MI325X versus 24.82 TFLOPS on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• TDP: 1000 W on the MI325X versus 150 W on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Slot width: OAM Module on the MI325X versus Single-slot on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Power connectors: None on the MI325X versus 1x 16-pin on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W on the MI325X versus 450 W on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Display outputs: No outputs on the MI325X versus 1x DisplayPort 2.1a on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• DirectX: N/A on the MI325X versus 12 Ultimate (12_2) on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• OpenGL: N/A on the MI325X versus 4.6 on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Vulkan: N/A on the MI325X versus 1.4 on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Dimensions: unspecified on the MI325X versus 241 mm length, 111 mm height, 19 mm width on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Production status: unspecified on the MI325X versus Active on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Release date: 2024-10-09 on the MI325X versus 2025-12-10 on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct on the MI325X versus Radeon Pro Vega on the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Instinct MI325X, with 6.14 TB/s from HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, compared to 576.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus for the Radeon AI PRO 9600D.

Q: Does either accelerator support ray tracing?

A: Only the Radeon AI PRO 9600D, which lists 48 ray tracing cores. The Instinct MI325X lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: Which part has a higher boost clock?

A: The Instinct MI325X boosts to 2100 MHz, while the Radeon AI PRO 9600D boosts to 2020 MHz. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a higher base clock at 1080 MHz versus 1000 MHz.

Q: What display outputs does the Instinct MI325X provide?

A: None. The MI325X lists no display outputs, while the Radeon AI PRO 9600D provides a single DisplayPort 2.1a output.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Instinct MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested 1400 W PSU, while the Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a TDP of 150 W with a suggested 450 W PSU.

Q: Which accelerator supports DirectX?

A: The Radeon AI PRO 9600D supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI325X lists N/A for all graphics APIs.

Where Each One Wins

The Instinct MI325X wins in every metric tied to raw compute scale and memory capacity. Its 256 GB HBM3e frame buffer dwarfs the Radeon AI PRO 9600D's 32 GB GDDR6, and its 6.14 TB/s bandwidth is over ten times higher. FP32 and FP16 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is more than triple the 24.82 TFLOPS of the Radeon AI PRO 9600D. The texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is roughly 6.6 times the 387.8 GTexel/s of the smaller part. The MI325X also carries 19,456 shading units versus 3,072, and 1,216 TMUs versus 192. Its 1000 W TDP and OAM form factor indicate a server-oriented, sustained-compute design, with no display outputs and no graphics API support, confirming a pure accelerator role.

The Radeon AI PRO 9600D wins in every metric tied to graphics output and power efficiency. It is the only one of the two with ROPs (96 versus 0) and ray tracing cores (48 versus none). Its pixel rate of 193.9 GPixel/s is functional, while the MI325X reports 0 MPixel/s. It provides a DisplayPort 2.1a output and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the MI325X lists N/A for all three APIs. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D also holds advantages in base clock (1080 MHz versus 1000 MHz), transistor density (151.0M / mm² versus 150.4M / mm²), and power draw, with a 150 W TDP against the MI325X's 1000 W. Its 241 mm single-slot physical design and single 16-pin power connector contrast with the OAM module format of the MI325X. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D also carries a newer process node at 4 nm versus 5 nm, and its production status is listed as Active while the MI325X has no production status listed. For workloads requiring rendering, ray tracing, or graphics API compatibility, the Radeon AI PRO 9600D is the only choice between the two based on the recorded data.