AMD Instinct MI325X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 occupy entirely separate performance domains, and the recorded data reflects that split clearly. The MI325X is an accelerator with no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. Its entire design targets compute workloads, with a 256 GB HBM3e memory pool and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The RTX 4060, by contrast, is a conventional graphics card built around the AD107 chip, delivering 15.11 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 118.1 GPixel/s pixel throughput, and full API compatibility including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X holds the decisive edge in raw compute capacity and memory bandwidth, while the RTX 4060 wins in every area related to graphics output, API support, and rasterization rates.

The data shows no overlapping use cases. The MI325X targets server racks and AI training clusters, where its 6.14 TB/s memory bandwidth and 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate process massive datasets. The RTX 4060 targets desktop gaming and workstation graphics, where its 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores handle real-time rendering, ray tracing, and DLSS workloads. Neither card can substitute for the other. The MI325X cannot drive a display, while the RTX 4060 cannot approach the MI325X's memory capacity or compute throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two chips share the same 5 nm TSMC process node, but diverge dramatically beyond that commonality. The MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, built for the Instinct (MIx) generation. It integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The RTX 4060 uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the GeForce 40-series. It packs 18,900 million transistors onto a 159 mm² die, with a density of 118.9 million per square millimeter. The MI325X's die is more than six times larger and holds over eight times the transistor count.

Memory architectures differ fundamentally. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4060 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 across a 128-bit bus, delivering 272.0 GB/s. The MI325X's bus width is 64 times wider, and its bandwidth exceeds the RTX 4060 by a factor of roughly 22.6. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, while the RTX 4060 has 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The MI325X reports 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, reflecting its lack of rasterization hardware. The RTX 4060 integrates 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores, while the MI325X lists no RT or tensor core counts.

Clock behavior also diverges. The MI325X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, with memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The RTX 4060 runs at 1830 MHz base and 2460 MHz boost, with memory at 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective). Despite the RTX 4060's higher clocks, the MI325X's massive shading unit count produces over five times the FP32 throughput. Power requirements reflect the scale difference: the MI325X carries a 1000 W TDP with a 1400 W suggested PSU, while the RTX 4060 has a 115 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two cards, and the MI325X has no benchmark scores or nearest rivals listed. The RTX 4060, however, has a full benchmark profile. Its average benchmark score is 17,639, and it sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7790 with an average score of 17,666 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon 780M at 17,588 (0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17,551 (0.5% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17,509 (0.7% behind). The RTX 4060's scores in individual tests range from 76 in Passmark DirectX 12 to 95,057 in Geekbench OpenCL.

The MI325X's absence from the benchmark database means no direct comparison is possible from the recorded measurements. The data does, however, provide enough specification-level evidence to project relative performance. The MI325X's FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS is 5.4 times the RTX 4060's 15.11 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is 10.8 times the RTX 4060's 236.2 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s dwarfs the RTX 4060's 272.0 GB/s. These deltas indicate that in pure compute workloads, the MI325X would outperform the RTX 4060 by a wide margin, though the RTX 4060's 118.1 GPixel/s pixel rate and 48 ROPs give it the only recorded rasterization capability between the two.

The RTX 4060's benchmark scores show a card that clusters tightly with older midrange parts. Its 0.2% deficit to the HD 7790 and 0.3% gain over the Radeon 780M place it in a narrow competitive band. The 0.5% and 0.7% margins over the Pro 560 and Pro 460, respectively, confirm that the RTX 4060 sits near the top of a tightly packed group. Its 61st percentile ranking indicates it outperforms most recorded GPUs, though the MI325X's 50th percentile with no scores reflects an unmeasured status rather than a competitive position.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded specification. The MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the RTX 4060 uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture. The MI325X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, the RTX 4060 to the GeForce 40 generation. Transistor counts differ by a factor of 8.1: 153,000 million versus 18,900 million. Die sizes differ by a factor of 6.4: 1017 mm² versus 159 mm². Transistor density favors the MI325X at 150.4M per mm² against 118.9M per mm².

Base clocks favor the RTX 4060 at 1830 MHz versus 1000 MHz, as do boost clocks at 2460 MHz versus 2100 MHz. Memory clocks also favor the RTX 4060 at 2125 MHz versus 1500 MHz, though effective memory speed favors the RTX 4060 at 17 Gbps versus 6 Gbps. Memory capacity favors the MI325X at 256 GB versus 8 GB, a 32-fold difference. Memory type differs entirely: HBM3e versus GDDR6. Bus width favors the MI325X at 8192 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth favors the MI325X at 6.14 TB/s versus 272.0 GB/s.

Shading units favor the MI325X at 19,456 versus 3,072, TMUs at 1,216 versus 96, and FP32 throughput at 81.72 TFLOPS versus 15.11 TFLOPS. The RTX 4060 holds the advantage in ROPs (48 versus 0), pixel rate (118.1 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s), RT cores (24 versus none listed), and tensor cores (96 versus none listed). TDP favors the RTX 4060 at 115 W versus 1000 W. Slot width differs: OAM Module for the MI325X, Dual-slot for the RTX 4060. Power connectors differ: none for the MI325X, 1x 12-pin for the RTX 4060. Suggested PSU differs: 1400 W versus 300 W. Bus interface differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI325X, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX 4060.

Display outputs differ entirely: none for the MI325X, 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RTX 4060. API support differs: the MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the RTX 4060 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Physical dimensions exist only for the RTX 4060 at 240 mm length, 111 mm height, and 40 mm width. Release dates differ: 2024-10-09 for the MI325X, 2023-05-17 for the RTX 4060. The RTX 4060 has a launch MSRP of 299 USD, a production status of end-of-life, a predecessor in GeForce 30, and a successor in GeForce 50. The MI325X has a predecessor in Radeon Instinct, no successor, and no launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth through its 8192-bit HBM3e interface. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 provides 272.0 GB/s through a 128-bit GDDR6 interface.

Q: Can the MI325X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI325X lists no display outputs and reports 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The RTX 4060 includes 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: Which card supports DirectX?

A: The RTX 4060 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: How does the FP32 compute compare?

A: The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The RTX 4060 delivers 15.11 TFLOPS, meaning the MI325X provides roughly 5.4 times the FP32 performance.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP with a 1400 W suggested PSU. The RTX 4060 has a 115 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: What are the nearest competitors to the RTX 4060?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (0.2% ahead), AMD Radeon 780M (0.3% behind), AMD Radeon Pro 560 (0.5% behind), and AMD Radeon Pro 460 (0.7% behind).

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves little ambiguity. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a server-class compute accelerator built for memory-intensive and throughput-heavy workloads. Its 256 GB HBM3e pool, 8192-bit bus, 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance place it in a category the RTX 4060 cannot approach. The MI325X has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no rasterization hardware, making it unsuitable for any task requiring visual output. Its 1000 W TDP and OAM module form factor further confirm its data-center orientation.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 is a desktop graphics card with a 115 W TDP, a dual-slot form factor, and full display and API support. Its 118.1 GPixel/s pixel rate, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores enable real-time rendering and ray tracing. Its benchmark profile shows a competitive position at the 61st percentile, with an average score of 17,639 and margins within 0.7% of its four nearest rivals. The 299 USD launch MSRP places it in the mainstream desktop segment.

The data indicates that the MI325X wins decisively in compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. The RTX 4060 wins in power efficiency, graphics capability, API support, and physical practicality. There is no scenario where the two cards compete directly, as their specifications and purposes do not overlap. The MI325X serves large-scale compute deployments, while the RTX 4060 serves conventional graphics workloads. The choice between them depends entirely on the workload, and the data provides no basis for cross-shopping.