AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the primary difference in memory capacity between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600?

A: The Instinct MI325X carries 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, while the Radeon PRO W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The MI325X delivers 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth versus 288.0 GB/s for the W7600.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The Radeon PRO W7600 boosts to 2440 MHz, while the Instinct MI325X boosts to 2100 MHz. The W7600 also has a higher base clock at 1720 MHz compared to 1000 MHz on the MI325X.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for each GPU?

A: The Instinct MI325X uses 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Radeon PRO W7600 uses 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The MI325X achieves a transistor density of 150.4M / mm², while the W7600 achieves 65.2M / mm².

Q: Does the Radeon PRO W7600 support display outputs?

A: Yes, the W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Instinct MI325X has no display outputs at all, as it is an OAM module designed for compute tasks.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Radeon PRO W7600, and how does it rank?

A: The W7600 has an average benchmark score of 87108 and sits at the 93rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, scores 87445, which is 0.4% higher.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance of each card?

A: The Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Radeon PRO W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32. In FP16, the MI325X again outputs 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the W7600 reaches 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio).

The Verdict

The data separates these two AMD accelerators into distinct roles with little overlap. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a compute-oriented OAM module with 256 GB of HBM3e memory, 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. It is built for large-scale data center workloads where memory capacity and raw floating-point output matter more than any display capability. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600, by contrast, is a single-slot workstation card with 8 GB of GDDR6, four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32. Its 93rd percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 87108 indicate strong general-purpose graphics performance for its class, while the MI325X has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile in the database.

The choice is clear from the recorded specifications. For compute-heavy tasks that demand enormous memory pools and maximum FP32 or FP16 throughput, the MI325X is the only option between the two. For any workload that requires display output, standard graphics APIs, or a conventional PCIe slot with a 6-pin power connector, the W7600 is the practical selection. The MI325X requires a 1400 W suggested PSU and uses no power connectors because it is an OAM module, while the W7600 uses a single 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The MI325X also lacks DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support in the database, whereas the W7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no shared benchmark entries between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 in the database. The MI325X has an empty benchmark list, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals. The W7600 has two recorded tests: Geekbench OpenCL at 81528 and Geekbench Vulkan at 92688. As a result, direct numerical comparison of application performance is not possible. The data instead allows for comparison of compute capacity and feature sets.

The largest measurable advantage for the MI325X is memory bandwidth. The MI325X delivers 6.14 TB/s, which is over 20 times the 288.0 GB/s of the W7600. Texture rate also favors the MI325X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 81.72 TFLOPS on the MI325X versus 19.99 TFLOPS on the W7600, a 4x advantage. FP16 output is 81.72 TFLOPS on the MI325X versus 39.98 TFLOPS on the W7600, a 2x advantage.

The W7600 wins on clock speeds. Its base clock of 1720 MHz and boost clock of 2440 MHz both exceed the MI325X figures of 1000 MHz and 2100 MHz. The W7600 also has a pixel rate of 156.2 GPixel/s, while the MI325X is listed at 0 MPixel/s, reflecting its lack of any display or rasterization pipeline. The MI325X has 0 ROPs, while the W7600 has 64. The W7600 also includes 32 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent on the MI325X.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The MI325X has a die size of 1017 mm² and 153,000 million transistors, while the W7600 has a 204 mm² die and 13,300 million transistors.

Memory configuration is starkly different. The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e with a 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock is listed at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective on the MI325X, versus 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective on the W7600.

Compute unit counts also diverge. The MI325X has 19456 shading units, 1216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI325X has no ray tracing cores, while the W7600 has 32.

Power and physical specifications show the intended use cases. The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W, uses an OAM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W, is single-slot, uses one 6-pin power connector, and requires a 300 W suggested PSU. The MI325X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The W7600 measures 241 mm in length and 115 mm in height; no dimensions are recorded for the MI325X.

The W7600 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The MI325X has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The MI325X is built on CDNA 3.0, AMD's compute-focused architecture, while the W7600 uses RDNA 3.0, the graphics-focused architecture. This difference drives most of the behavioral divergence in the data. CDNA 3.0 on the MI325X prioritizes FP32 and FP16 throughput, memory bandwidth, and large memory pools, all at the cost of display and graphics features. The MI325X has no display outputs, no DirectX, no OpenGL, and no Vulkan support. Its ROP count is zero, meaning no pixel output is possible.

RDNA 3.0 on the W7600 includes a full graphics pipeline. The W7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has 64 ROPs and 32 ray tracing cores, enabling rasterization, ray tracing, and display output through 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The FP16 ratio differs as well: the MI325X runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the W7600 runs FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP16 throughput to 39.98 TFLOPS.

The process nodes differ by one step: 5 nm for the MI325X and 6 nm for the W7600. Both are fabricated by TSMC. Transistor density reflects this: the MI325X packs 150.4M transistors per mm², while the W7600 packs 65.2M per mm². The MI325X also uses a different form factor entirely, an OAM Module, compared to the single-slot PCIe card design of the W7600.

The release dates differ by over a year. The MI325X was released on 2024-10-09, while the W7600 was released on 2023-08-02. The MI325X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor, while the W7600 lists Radeon Pro Vega. Both cards have no recorded successor in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins decisively in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 256 GB of HBM3e and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large model training, high-performance computing, and other memory-bound workloads. Its FP32 output of 81.72 TFLOPS and FP16 output of 81.72 TFLOPS give it a clear advantage in raw compute throughput. The texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s further indicates strong fill-rate capacity for compute shaders. The MI325X also holds an advantage in transistor count, die size, and transistor density, all of which point to a large-scale data center accelerator.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins in graphics and workstation functionality. It is the only one of the two with display outputs, supporting 4x DisplayPort 2.1. It has a full graphics API stack, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 32 ray tracing cores and 64 ROPs enable rendering workloads that the MI325X cannot handle. The W7600 also has higher clock speeds, with a boost clock of 2440 MHz versus 2100 MHz on the MI325X, and a pixel rate of 156.2 GPixel/s. Its lower TDP of 130 W and single-slot form factor make it far easier to integrate into a standard workstation, and its 93rd percentile ranking with an average benchmark score of 87108 shows solid real-world performance. The nearest rival data confirms the W7600 sits in a competitive band: the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87445 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA CMP 40HX scores 85637 (1.7% lower), the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile scores 91134 (4.4% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 91671 (5% higher).

The recorded data points to a split: the MI325X for compute-density applications that need massive memory and throughput, and the W7600 for graphics, rendering, and general workstation use.