AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no benchmark entries in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010, by contrast, has a single recorded benchmark result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,893.

That single score places the RTX 4010 at the 18th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The nearest rivals around that score are tightly clustered. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB scores 2,907, which is 0.5% higher. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF scores 2,910, 0.6% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB scores 2,913, 0.7% higher. The NVIDIA Quadro P600 scores 2,923, 1% higher. The RTX 4010 trails each of these by less than a full percentage point, indicating that its rasterization performance in this specific DX12 workload sits just below a group of established mid-range and professional cards.

Because the MI325X has no benchmark scores, no wins can be assigned to either side from direct testing. The wins counter shows zero for both products. The absence of comparative data means the performance relationship between these two accelerators must be inferred from their architectural and specification differences rather than from measured results.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI325X have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists no benchmarks for the MI325X, giving it an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs.

Q: What is the RTX 4010's only benchmark result?

A: The RTX 4010 scores 2,893 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. That result places it at the 18th percentile of all GPUs and gives it an average benchmark score of 2,893.

Q: How close is the RTX 4010 to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The RTX 4010 trails the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB by 0.5%, the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF by 0.6%, the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB by 0.7%, and the Quadro P600 by 1%. All four rivals score between 2,907 and 2,923.

Q: Which product has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth from 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus. The RTX 4010 provides 96.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The MI325X uses 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the RTX 4010 uses 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The MI325X transistor density is 150.4 million per mm², compared to 43.5 million per mm² for the RTX 4010.

Q: Does the RTX 4010 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RTX 4010 includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, and its API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X lists no ray tracing or tensor core counts and has no API support recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different architectural generations with different design goals. The AMD Instinct MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip called Aqua Vanjaram, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 uses the Ampere architecture on the GA107 chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference is substantial: 5 nm versus 8 nm, which partly explains the large transistor density gap.

Transistor counts reveal the scale disparity. The MI325X packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4 million transistors per mm². The RTX 4010 contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5 million per mm². The MI325X die is roughly five times larger in area and carries more than seventeen times the transistor count.

The compute resources differ massively. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s and its texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The RTX 4010 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 28.19 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 42.29 GTexel/s. The MI325X is clearly built for compute throughput rather than rasterization output, as its zero ROP count and zero pixel rate indicate.

Floating-point performance follows the same pattern. The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, with a 1:1 ratio. The RTX 4010 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, also at a 1:1 ratio. The MI325X offers roughly thirty times the FP32 throughput of the RTX 4010.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4010 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock rates are recorded identically at 1500 MHz, with 6 Gbps effective for the MI325X and 12 Gbps effective for the RTX 4010. The MI325X memory subsystem is designed for immense data movement, while the RTX 4010 memory is sized for consumer graphics workloads.

The RTX 4010 includes hardware features absent from the MI325X: 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X lists no API support at all, with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all marked as not applicable. This reinforces the positioning of the MI325X as a compute accelerator without display or graphics API responsibilities.

Specification Differences

The AMD Instinct MI325X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

The MI325X uses a 5 nm TSMC process; the RTX 4010 uses an 8 nm Samsung process. The MI325X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die; the RTX 4010 has 8,700 million on 200 mm². Transistor density is 150.4 million per mm² versus 43.5 million per mm².

Base clocks differ: the MI325X runs at 1000 MHz, the RTX 4010 at 1417 MHz. Boost clocks are 2100 MHz for the MI325X and 1762 MHz for the RTX 4010. The RTX 4010 actually has a higher base clock, but the MI325X has a higher boost clock.

Memory capacity is 256 GB of HBM3e versus 4 GB of GDDR6. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth is 6.14 TB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. Effective memory speed is 6 Gbps versus 12 Gbps.

Compute units: the MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The RTX 4010 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The MI325X has no RT cores or tensor cores recorded; the RTX 4010 has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores.

Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI325X versus 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX 4010. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI325X and 2.706 TFLOPS for the RTX 4010.

Thermal and power specifications are far apart. The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RTX 4010 has a TDP of 50 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI325X uses an OAM module slot width with no power connectors listed; the RTX 4010 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and dimensions of 163 mm length and 69 mm height.

Bus interfaces differ: the MI325X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, the RTX 4010 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are absent on the MI325X, while the RTX 4010 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Release dates are recorded as 2024-10-09 for the MI325X and 2024-04-15 for the RTX 4010. The RTX 4010 is listed as active in production, with the GeForce 30 series as predecessor and GeForce 50 as successor. The MI325X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor and no successor.

Where Each One Wins

The data supports clear specialization for each product.

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 and FP16 performance of 81.72 TFLOPS dwarfs the RTX 4010's 2.706 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is roughly sixty times the RTX 4010's 42.29 GTexel/s. Memory capacity of 256 GB and bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s position it for workloads that require massive data residency and high-speed memory access. The 8192-bit bus width and HBM3e memory type are unique to this class of accelerator.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 wins in graphics-oriented features. It has 16 ROPs and a pixel rate of 28.19 GPixel/s, while the MI325X has zero ROPs and zero pixel rate. The RTX 4010 includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the MI325X record. API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 enables consumer and workstation graphics workloads, while the MI325X lists no API compatibility. Display outputs on the RTX 4010 allow direct monitor connection, something the MI325X cannot do.

The RTX 4010 also wins on power efficiency in absolute terms. Its 50 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU are a fraction of the MI325X's 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU. The RTX 4010 has a higher base clock (1417 MHz versus 1000 MHz) and a smaller physical footprint at 163 mm length in a single-slot design.

The MI325X wins on memory bandwidth by an enormous margin: 6.14 TB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, a factor of roughly 64. It also wins on transistor density and total transistor count, indicating a more advanced manufacturing process and a vastly larger silicon investment.

The Verdict

The database provides no direct benchmark comparison, so the verdict must follow from the recorded specifications and the RTX 4010's single measured score.

For compute acceleration workloads, the AMD Instinct MI325X is the clear choice. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 256 GB HBM3e memory, 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, and 8192-bit bus are all far beyond the RTX 4010's capabilities. The zero ROP count and lack of display outputs confirm it is not intended for graphics rendering. The 1000 W TDP and OAM module form factor indicate a data center installation, not a desktop.

For consumer or workstation graphics, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 is the only option between the two. It has display outputs, ROPs, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and full API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate. Its measured 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2,893 places it at the 18th percentile of all GPUs, just 0.5% to 1% behind four nearby rivals. Its 50 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU make it suitable for low-power systems.

The MI325X has no benchmark data, so its percentile rank of 50 is not supported by any measured performance. That rank should be treated as unverified. The RTX 4010, by contrast, has a verified score and a clear competitive position relative to its nearest rivals.

Users seeking a graphics card with rendering, ray tracing, and display output should select the RTX 4010. Users seeking a compute accelerator with extreme memory capacity and floating-point throughput should select the MI325X. The two products occupy separate categories, and the data does not support treating them as direct competitors. The absence of head-to-head benchmarks means any direct performance comparison would rely on inference from specifications, and the specification gap is so large in opposite directions that the correct choice depends entirely on the workload.