AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs for the AMD Instinct MI325X and the AMD Radeon RX 7600. The MI325X has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals listed. The RX 7600, by contrast, has a full set of recorded results across multiple tests, an average benchmark score of 15,171, and a percentile rank of 57 against all GPUs in the database.

For the RX 7600, the strongest results appear in synthetic compute and graphics workloads. Geekbench OpenCL returns a score of 88,051, while Geekbench Vulkan returns 34,401. Passmark G3D scores 16,634, and Passmark GPU Compute scores 8,790. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test shows 2,310. In the Passmark suite, DirectX 9 scores 226, DirectX 11 scores 172, DirectX 10 scores 84, and DirectX 12 scores 58. The G2D test returns 984.

The nearest rivals for the RX 7600 are tightly clustered. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM averages 15,199, which is 0.2% ahead of the RX 7600. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X averages 15,082, sitting 0.6% behind. The AMD Radeon 680M averages 15,270, which is 0.7% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti averages 15,063, placing 0.7% behind. These deltas are small, indicating the RX 7600 sits within a narrow performance band among these rivals. The data shows a close grouping, with the RX 7600 neither dominating nor trailing by a meaningful margin in aggregate score.

Because the MI325X has no benchmark entries, its percentile rank of 50 is based on its position among all GPUs in the database, but no measured performance data exists to compare. Any direct head-to-head statement between these two cards cannot be supported by recorded measurements. The only concrete comparison available is the RX 7600 against its named rivals, and that comparison shows near parity across the board.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators use fundamentally different AMD architectures. The MI325X is built on CDNA 3.0, designed for data center compute workloads. The RX 7600 uses RDNA 3.0, aimed at client graphics. The MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the RX 7600 uses Navi 33, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish.

The manufacturing process differs. The MI325X is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 7600 uses a 6 nm process at the same foundry. Transistor counts diverge sharply. The MI325X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 7600 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The MI325X die is roughly five times larger in area and holds over eleven times more transistors.

Memory architecture is another major split. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI325X memory bandwidth is more than twenty times higher. The RX 7600 has 64 ROPs and 32 ray tracing cores, while the MI325X lists 0 ROPs and no ray tracing core count. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, against 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs for the RX 7600.

Clock behavior differs. The MI325X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz. The RX 7600 starts at 1720 MHz base, boosts to 2655 MHz, and has a game clock of 2250 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the MI325X runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the RX 7600 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Pixel and texture rates reflect their different design goals. The MI325X lists a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The RX 7600 has a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s. FP32 compute shows the MI325X at 81.72 TFLOPS, while the RX 7600 delivers 21.75 TFLOPS. Both list FP16 at 1:1 ratios, with the same absolute numbers as FP32.

The MI325X has no display outputs, no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, and uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors. The RX 7600 is a dual-slot card with one 8-pin connector, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The bus interfaces differ as well: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI325X, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RX 7600.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the RX 7600 delivers 21.75 TFLOPS FP32. The MI325X is about 3.8 times higher in this metric.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e, while the RX 7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6. The MI325X also has a much wider 8192-bit bus compared to the 128-bit bus on the RX 7600.

Q: Does the MI325X support display output?

A: No. The MI325X has no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The RX 7600 has HDMI 2.1a and DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and supports those APIs.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RX 7600 has a TDP of 165 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: Which card has ray tracing hardware?

A: The RX 7600 lists 32 ray tracing cores. The MI325X does not list a ray tracing core count.

Q: What are the release dates for these cards?

A: The MI325X was released on 2024-10-09, while the RX 7600 was released on 2023-05-24.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram (MI325X) vs Navi 33 (RX 7600)
• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 vs RDNA 3.0
• Codename: None listed vs Hotpink Bonefish
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) vs Navi III (RX 7000)
• Process Node: 5 nm vs 6 nm
• Transistors: 153,000 million vs 13,300 million
• Die Size: 1017 mm² vs 204 mm²
• Transistor Density: 150.4M / mm² vs 65.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz vs 1720 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2100 MHz vs 2655 MHz
• Game Clock: Not listed vs 2250 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz 6 Gbps effective vs 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 256 GB vs 8 GB
• Memory Type: HBM3e vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 6.14 TB/s vs 288.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 19,456 vs 2,048
• TMUs: 1,216 vs 128
• ROPs: 0 vs 64
• Ray Tracing Cores: Not listed vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s vs 169.9 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s vs 339.8 GTexel/s
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS vs 21.75 TFLOPS
• FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 21.75 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 1000 W vs 165 W
• Slot Width: OAM Module vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W vs 450 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: No outputs vs 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1
• DirectX: N/A vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL: N/A vs 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A vs 1.4
• Dimensions: Not listed vs 204 mm length, 115 mm height
• Production Status: Not listed vs Active
• Release Date: 2024-10-09 vs 2023-05-24
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct vs Navi II
• Successor: Not listed vs Navi IV
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 269 USD

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two products into entirely different categories. The MI325X is a data center compute module with massive memory capacity, extremely high bandwidth, and no display or graphics API support. The RX 7600 is a client graphics card with display outputs, ray tracing hardware, and a mature API feature set.

Benchmark results exist only for the RX 7600. Its average score of 15,171 and percentile rank of 57 place it in the middle of the database. Its nearest rivals sit within 0.7% in either direction, meaning the RX 7600 is competitively positioned against those specific GPUs. The MI325X has no measured scores, so no verdict on its actual performance can be drawn from the database.

For a user selecting between these two, the choice is clear based on intended function. The MI325X offers compute resources on a scale the RX 7600 cannot approach, but it cannot drive a monitor or run graphics workloads. The RX 7600 provides standard graphics functionality and API support, but its compute and memory resources are far smaller. The data does not support using one as a substitute for the other, as their capabilities do not overlap.

Where Each One Wins

The MI325X wins decisively in raw compute throughput, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and shading unit count. It has 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 against 21.75 TFLOPS, 256 GB of HBM3e against 8 GB of GDDR6, and 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth against 288.0 GB/s. Its 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs dwarf the RX 7600's 2,048 and 128. For workloads that require large memory footprints or massive parallel arithmetic, the MI325X is the only option between the two.

The RX 7600 wins in every area tied to graphics output and client use. It has a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s, while the MI325X has 0 MPixel/s. It provides 32 ray tracing cores, which the MI325X does not list. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI325X lists N/A for all three. It has display outputs, a dual-slot form factor, a single 8-pin power connector, and a 165 W TDP. The RX 7600 also has the only recorded benchmark scores in the database, including an average score of 15,171 and a 57th percentile rank. The RX 7600 has a production status of Active, while the MI325X has none listed.

In practical terms, the RX 7600 wins for any scenario involving a monitor, a desktop chassis, or a graphics API. The MI325X wins for compute-heavy tasks where graphics output is irrelevant and power limits are not a constraint. The data shows no overlap in their functional strengths.