AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI325X versus the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, by contrast, has a complete set of benchmark results across multiple test suites. Its average benchmark score is 8746, and it sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 52998. In PassMark tests, it scores 61 in DirectX 10, 94 in DirectX 11, 55 in DirectX 12, and 152 in DirectX 9. The 2D graphics score is 526, while the 3D graphics score reaches 11664. The GPU compute score in PassMark is 4419.

The absence of any benchmark data for the AMD Instinct MI325X means the database cannot show a direct performance comparison between the two cards. The MI325X has a percentile ranking of 50, which places it above the RTX 3050 A Mobile's 44th percentile, but this ranking is not supported by any actual benchmark scores. The percentile field for the MI325X appears to be a database placement rather than a performance-derived value, as its average benchmark score is zero.

The RTX 3050 A Mobile's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its measured performance. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 has an average score of 8743, representing a 0 percent delta. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 8686, which is 0.7 percent behind the RTX 3050 A Mobile. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8851, putting it 1.2 percent ahead. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 8863, which is 1.3 percent ahead. These small deltas indicate the RTX 3050 A Mobile clusters tightly with mid-range GPUs from previous generations, all within roughly 1.3 percent of each other.

The data confirms that the RTX 3050 A Mobile is a measured, benchmarked product, while the MI325X is not. The MI325X's raw specifications suggest far higher compute capacity, but the database contains no empirical results to verify that. Any performance comparison between these two products must rely entirely on the specification differences, as no head-to-head measurements exist.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Instinct MI325X?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has an average benchmark score of 0, and no individual benchmark entries are recorded in the database.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile has an average benchmark score of 8746, derived from eight recorded benchmark tests including Geekbench OpenCL and multiple PassMark suites.

Q: How does the RTX 3050 A Mobile compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile's average score of 8746 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 8743 (0 percent delta). It trails the AMD Radeon R9 M265X by 1.2 percent and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 by 1.3 percent, while leading the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 by 0.7 percent.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking in the database?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X is ranked at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile is ranked at the 44th percentile. This ranking difference exists despite the MI325X having no measured benchmark scores.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile is listed as end-of-life. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no production status recorded in the database.

Q: Do the two GPUs share any benchmark results?

A: No. The database contains zero head-to-head benchmark entries, zero wins for either GPU, and the MI325X has no benchmarks at all. Only the RTX 3050 A Mobile has recorded measurements.

The Verdict

The data presents an unusual situation. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no benchmark scores, no measured performance data, and no rival comparisons. Its database presence rests entirely on its specification sheet. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile has a full set of measured results, placing it in a tight cluster of mid-range GPUs from earlier generations.

For users who rely on measured benchmark data, the RTX 3050 A Mobile is the only product in this comparison with empirical evidence. Its scores place it within 1.3 percent of the GeForce GTX 460 v2, Quadro P2200, Radeon R9 M265X, and Radeon Pro WX 5100, indicating a consistent performance level across these tests. The 44th percentile ranking reflects a product that sits slightly below the midpoint of all GPUs in the database.

The MI325X's 50th percentile ranking suggests it is placed above the RTX 3050 A Mobile in the database hierarchy, but this placement is not supported by any recorded benchmark. The specification sheet indicates a far larger and more powerful accelerator, but the database cannot confirm how that translates into measured performance. The verdict from the data alone is that the RTX 3050 A Mobile is a verified, measured product, while the MI325X is an unverified entry whose actual performance remains unquantified.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses an Aqua Vanjaram chip built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, containing 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, with a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile uses a GA106 chip built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, containing 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, with a transistor density of 43.5M per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The MI325X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has a base clock of 1065 MHz and a boost clock of 1343 MHz. Memory clocks are the same at 1500 MHz, but effective speeds differ: 6 Gbps effective for the MI325X versus 12 Gbps effective for the RTX 3050 A Mobile.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192 bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Shader resources differ by an order of magnitude. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, with 0 ROPs. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has 1,792 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI325X has no RT cores or tensor cores recorded, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile has 14 RT cores and 56 tensor cores.

Pixel and texture rates diverge sharply. The MI325X has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has a pixel rate of 42.98 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 75.21 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 compute both stand at 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI325X, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile delivers 4.813 TFLOPS in both.

Power and form factor differ completely. The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W, is an OAM Module with no power connectors, and suggests a 1400 W power supply. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has a TDP of 45 W, is an IGP with no power connectors, and has no suggested power supply listed.

Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI325X versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX 3050 A Mobile. Display outputs are absent on the MI325X, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile is portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI325X is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation, and uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the Ampere architecture, part of the GeForce 30 Mobile generation, and uses the GA106 chip. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: CDNA targets compute acceleration, while Ampere targets consumer graphics.

The manufacturing processes differ by foundry and node. The MI325X uses TSMC's 5 nm process, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile uses Samsung's 8 nm process. This accounts for the large difference in transistor density: 150.4M per mm² for the MI325X versus 43.5M per mm² for the RTX 3050 A Mobile. The MI325X packs 153,000 million transistors, over 12 times the RTX 3050 A Mobile's 12,000 million, and its die is nearly four times larger at 1017 mm² versus 276 mm².

Memory architecture reflects the divergent purposes. The MI325X uses HBM3e with a 8192 bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, a configuration designed for massive data movement in compute workloads. The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses GDDR6 with a 128 bit bus and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, a conventional configuration for consumer graphics. The MI325X has 64 times the memory capacity at 256 GB versus 4 GB.

Compute resources differ in structure as well as scale. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs but zero ROPs, consistent with a compute accelerator that does not rasterize. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has 1,792 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, including 14 RT cores and 56 tensor cores for ray tracing and AI workloads. The MI325X has no RT cores or tensor cores recorded, meaning the database lists no dedicated hardware for those functions.

API support differentiates the two products completely. The MI325X lists no APIs for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The RTX 3050 A Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X has no display outputs, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile's outputs are portable device dependent.

Release timing differs by about 10 months. The MI325X was released on 2024-10-09, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile was released on 2023-12-31. The RTX 3050 A Mobile is marked end-of-life, while the MI325X has no production status recorded. Predecessors also differ: the MI325X follows the Radeon Instinct, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile follows the GeForce 20 Mobile series.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile wins in every category where measurements exist. It has all eight benchmark scores, an average score of 8746, and a complete set of API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has display outputs, pixel processing capability at 42.98 GPixel/s, and dedicated RT and tensor cores. It also consumes far less power at 45 W compared to 1000 W, and it is a mobile IGP form factor suitable for portable devices.

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins in every specification category where the database records a value. It has a larger memory capacity at 256 GB, a wider memory bus at 8192 bit, and far higher bandwidth at 6.14 TB/s. Its shading unit count of 19,456 is over 10 times the RTX 3050 A Mobile's 1,792. Its FP32 and FP16 compute of 81.72 TFLOPS is roughly 17 times the RTX 3050 A Mobile's 4.813 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s dwarfs the RTX 3050 A Mobile's 75.21 GTexel/s. Its transistor count, die size, and density all exceed the RTX 3050 A Mobile by wide margins. It also uses a newer PCIe 5.0 x16 interface versus PCIe 4.0 x8, and it is built on a 5 nm process versus 8 nm.

There is no overlap in measured performance. The RTX 3050 A Mobile's wins are all empirical; the MI325X's wins are all specification-based. The database's percentile rankings place the MI325X at 50 and the RTX 3050 A Mobile at 44, but only the RTX 3050 A Mobile has benchmark data to justify its position. The MI325X's 50th percentile is unsupported by any measured score.

The use-case split follows the architecture. The RTX 3050 A Mobile suits graphics workloads: it has ROPs, pixel rate, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and full API support. The MI325X suits compute workloads: its massive memory bandwidth, 256 GB capacity, and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 compute align with data-intensive acceleration, though the database contains no benchmarks to confirm this. The MI325X cannot display output and has no graphics API support, so it cannot function as a consumer graphics card. The RTX 3050 A Mobile cannot match the MI325X's memory or compute scale, so it cannot function as a large-scale compute accelerator. The data shows two products with almost no functional overlap.