AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon RX 7400 Comparison

AMD Instinct MI325X and AMD Radeon RX 7400 are both AMD products, but they serve completely different purposes. The MI325X is a data center accelerator built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the RX 7400 is a desktop graphics card from the Radeon RX 7000 series. The recorded data shows a stark contrast in specifications, benchmark availability, and intended workloads. The MI325X has no benchmark entries or nearest rivals in the database, whereas the RX 7400 has a full suite of DirectX and compute benchmarks, placing it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs. This analysis relies strictly on the recorded specifications and benchmark scores to highlight where each component would be selected based on workload requirements.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins in raw compute capacity, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth, as indicated by its specification sheet. It features 19,456 shading units and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, alongside 256 GB of HBM3e memory with a 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The FP32 performance is listed at 81.72 TFLOPS, and the FP16 performance is identical at 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. These figures point to a device engineered for massive parallel workloads, such as AI training or scientific simulation, where memory size and throughput are critical.

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 wins in practical, consumer-facing graphics workloads that have actual benchmark scores in the database. It records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1103, a Passmark G3D score of 11897, and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 5152. The card also delivers a pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for gaming and desktop rendering. Its nearest rivals in the database show a tight cluster: the AMD Radeon 8040S is 1.1% ahead, the NVIDIA GeForce 710M is 1.4% ahead, the Intel HD Graphics 610 is 1.8% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M is 1.9% ahead. This indicates the RX 7400 sits near the lower end of the performance spectrum for its benchmarked peers.

The MI325X has no benchmarks, no wins, and no nearest rivals recorded, so its "win" is purely theoretical based on specifications. The RX 7400 has no direct wins over the MI325X in any benchmark because no head-to-head tests exist, but it does have measurable performance in real-world APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X lists 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon RX 7400 lists 16.49 TFLOPS FP32. The MI325X is approximately 4.95 times higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory on a 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RX 7400 support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the RX 7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no consumer graphics API support.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 7400 has a boost clock of 2300 MHz, compared to the MI325X boost clock of 2100 MHz. The RX 7400 also has a higher base clock at 1452 MHz versus 1000 MHz.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, with no power connectors (OAM Module form factor). The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W, a suggested PSU of 200 W, and uses one 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The MI325X is at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RX 7400 is at the 17th percentile. However, the MI325X has no benchmark scores, so this percentile is based on no recorded measurements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark results exist between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the AMD Radeon RX 7400. The database lists zero wins for each in direct comparison. The MI325X has an empty benchmarks array, and the RX 7400 has its own independent benchmark scores. Therefore, any performance comparison must rely on specification differences rather than measured test results.

The RX 7400's benchmark scores provide a baseline for its performance tier. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1103 and Passmark G3D score of 11897 show it as a low-end desktop GPU. The Passmark DirectX 9 score of 176, DirectX 11 score of 97, DirectX 12 score of 44, and DirectX 10 score of 59 indicate decreasing performance across newer API generations, which is typical for entry-level cards. The Passmark G2D score of 1209 reflects 2D desktop work, and the GPU Compute score of 5152 shows limited compute capability compared to the MI325X's theoretical FP32 output.

The MI325X has no benchmark numbers, so the largest "win" in terms of measured data goes to the RX 7400 simply because it has data. In terms of raw specifications, the MI325X outperforms the RX 7400 in every compute metric: shading units (19,456 vs 1,792), texture rate (2,553.6 GTexel/s vs 257.6 GTexel/s), FP32 (81.72 TFLOPS vs 16.49 TFLOPS), and memory bandwidth (6.14 TB/s vs 288.0 GB/s). The RX 7400 counters with a higher boost clock (2300 MHz vs 2100 MHz) and a higher pixel rate (147.2 GPixel/s vs 0 MPixel/s), though the MI325X lists 0 ROPs, which explains its zero pixel rate.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The MI325X uses a 5 nm process node, while the RX 7400 uses a 6 nm node, both from TSMC. The MI325X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The RX 7400 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2M per mm².

Clock speeds differ: the MI325X runs at a base of 1000 MHz and boost of 2100 MHz, while the RX 7400 runs at a base of 1452 MHz, a game clock of 2200 MHz, and a boost of 2300 MHz. Memory clocks also differ, with the MI325X at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) and the RX 7400 at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is vastly different. The MI325X has 256 GB HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7400 has 8 GB GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The RX 7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores.

Power and form factor differ sharply. The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP, uses an OAM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. The RX 7400 has a 43 W TDP, uses a dual-slot design, has one 6-pin connector, and requires a 200 W suggested PSU. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI325X versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RX 7400. The MI325X has no display outputs, while the RX 7400 offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Release dates differ as well. The MI325X was released on 2024-10-09, and the RX 7400 on 2025-08-07. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, which is designed for compute accelerators. Its FP16 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, indicating balanced compute for mixed-precision workloads. The RX 7400 uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Navi 33 chip, which is designed for graphics rendering. Its FP16 performance is 32.97 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can do twice the FP16 work per FP32 instruction, a common trait for graphics-oriented designs.

The MI325X has no ray tracing cores listed, and its DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support are all marked N/A. This confirms it is not intended for standard graphics APIs. The RX 7400 lists 28 ray tracing cores and full API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 7400 also has a codename of Hotpink Bonefish, while the MI325X has no codename listed. The MI325X generation is listed as Instinct (MIx), and the RX 7400 generation is Navi III (RX 7000).

Both are manufactured by AMD, but the MI325X has no direct predecessor beyond "Radeon Instinct" as a category, while the RX 7400 has a predecessor of "Navi II" and a successor of "Navi IV." The MI325X has no successor listed. The MI325X has no display outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor; the RX 7400 can output to multiple displays.

The Verdict

The data indicates two completely separate usage domains. The AMD Instinct MI325X is for server or data center installations requiring massive memory capacity (256 GB) and extreme bandwidth (6.14 TB/s), with compute throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16. It has no consumer graphics outputs, no API support for DirectX or Vulkan, and a 1000 W TDP that demands a 1400 W PSU. Its 50th percentile ranking is based on no benchmark scores, so that figure should be treated as unverified.

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 is a low-power desktop GPU with a 43 W TDP, a 200 W suggested PSU, and full graphics API support. Its benchmark scores place it at the 17th percentile, with nearest rivals within a 1.1% to 1.9% range. The Passmark G3D score of 11897 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1103 show it is a capable entry-level card for standard desktop use, but its compute scores are far below the MI325X's theoretical output.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision is based on workload. The MI325X is the only choice for memory-bound compute tasks requiring 256 GB of HBM3e and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7400 is the only choice for a graphics card that connects to displays and runs DirectX 12 Ultimate games or applications. No benchmark data exists to compare them directly, so the selection rests entirely on the specification differences and the RX 7400's measured results.